Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV23120, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23120    Hearing Date: August 1, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff Tito Harper filed this action against Defendants Damco Distribution Services, Inc. and Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions Inc. arising from his employment.

On October 20, 2023, Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions Inc. filed a petition to compel arbitration.  Defendants Damco Distribution Services, Inc. filed a notice of joinder.

DISCUSSION

When seeking to compel arbitration of a plaintiff’s claims, the defendant must allege the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.  (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)  The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the agreement.  (Ibid.)  After the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, it then considers objections to its enforceability.  (Ibid.)

The Court must grant a petition to compel arbitration unless the defendant has waived the right to compel arbitration or if there are grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement.  (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)  Under California law and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), an arbitration agreement may be invalid based upon grounds applicable to any contract, including unconscionability, fraud, duress, and public policy.  (Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 154, 165-166.)

A.        Defendants Have Shown The Existence of An Arbitration Agreement.

Plaintiff was employed by Simplified as a staffing agency worker, and he was assigned to perform services for Damco (a Simplified customer).  (Joinder ¶ 1.)  On June 8, 2021, Plaintiff electronically signed an Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver.  (Petition Ex. 1 [“Arbitration Agreement”].)  Through the Arbitration Agreement, the parties agreed to arbitrate “all disputes relating to or arising out of or in connection with employment . . . .”

Defendants have satisfied their burden of showing the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.

B.        The Arbitration Agreement Satisfies The Armendariz Factors.

Arbitration agreements for FEHA claims must (1) provide for neutral arbitrators, (2) provide for more than minimal discovery, (3) require a written award, (4) provide for all of the types of relief that would otherwise be available in court, and (5) not require employees to pay either unreasonable costs or any arbitrators’ fees or expenses as a condition of access to the arbitration forum.  (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102 (Armendariz).)  These requirements may apply to non-FEHA employment claims.  (See Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 254 [applying the Armendariz factors in the context of claims under the Labor Code].)

The arbitration will proceed with a neutral arbitrator through AAA, whose rules provide for adequate discovery and a written award.  Plaintiff’s share of the arbitration fees will not exceed the amount of a local court filing fee.

Accordingly, the Arbitration Agreement satisfies Armendariz.

C.        The Arbitration Agreement Should Be Enforced.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  Accordingly, he has not shown any grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ petition to compel arbitration is GRANTED.  The entire action is STAYED pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

A Status Conference re: Arbitration is scheduled for August 1, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  Five court days before, the parties are to file a joint report stating the name of their retained arbitrator and the status of arbitration.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 1st day of August 2024