Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 21STCV33097, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff Serena Serrano (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Core Community Organized Relief Effort, Ann Young, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Fire Department, and Jamie Lesinki (Defendants) with nine causes of action for (1) Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment (2) Gender Violence, (3) Sexual Battery under CCP 1708.5, (4) Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment in violation of Gov. Code § 12940(i), (5) Sexual Harassment, (6) Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 12940(h), (7) Failure to Prevent Harassment in violation of Gov. Code § 12940(k), (8) Failure to Prevent Retaliation, and (9) Wrongful Termination.

On June 29, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to arbitrate Plaintiff’s claims.

On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff brought the instant motion to vacate contractual arbitration award. On April 3, 2024, Defendant Core Community Organized Relied Effort and Young filed in opposition. On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

“Any party to an arbitration award in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.) “Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator’s award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.” (O’Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.) “Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: it may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.” (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.) “It is well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.” (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.) “Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may ‘review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator’s reasoning, nor may we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator’s legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award’s face.” (EHM Productions, supra, at p. 1063-64.) The Code of Civil Procedure § 1285.8 further provides that a response requesting such relief “shall set forth the grounds on which the request for such relief is based. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.8.)

Petitioner contends that the Arbitration Award entered by Arbitrator Richard R. Mainland on the grounds that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority and the award cannot be fairly corrected. Plaintiff argues that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority by applying the AAA Employment Arbitration Rules (EAR), which Plaintiff claims were not agreed to by the parties, to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants Core Community and Young contend that the Arbitrator acted within his authority to dismiss the Complaint for timeliness.

In determining whether an arbitrator exceeded his or her powers, we look to the parties’ arbitration agreement to see if and how it limited the arbitrator's authority because arbitrators have no powers beyond those conferred upon them by the arbitration agreement; their powers “ ‘ “derive from, and are limited by, the agreement to arbitrate.” ’ ” (California Union Square L.P. v. Saks & Company LLC (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 340, 349 citing Greenspan v. LADT LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1437.)

Subject to each Party's right to obtain provisional equitable relief in a court of applicable jurisdiction pending a final award by the arbitrator, any controversy or claim between the Employer and the Employee related to this Agreement shall be settled by expedited arbitration in accordance with the expedited labor arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), except that if the employer adopts an employment ADR plan, within the meaning of the National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes of the AAA (the “Employment Rules”), then such employment ADR plan and the Employment Rules shall apply, in either case, notwithstanding the amount and controversy…

(Pet. p.7; Attach. 4(b).) The Arbitration Award indicates that the Arbitrator was not persuaded by Plaintiff’s contention that the AAA’s Labor arbitration rule should apply, finding that CORE did adopt an ADR plan and that under the Employment Rules, it was likely that the AAA would not have accepted the case unless a plan had been adopted. (Id. p. 14; Attach. 8(c).) Here, the Arbitrator was not acting in excess of his authority because he was following the arbitration agreement's clear expression that an employment ADR plan controls when the employer chooses to do so. The Arbitrator found CORE had done so. Moreover, the Arbitrator further noted that despite the limitation language appearing in the Employment Rules and not the Employment Agreement itself did not prevent its application as the was incorporated by reference.

Plaintiff’s reliance on California Union Square L.P. v. Saks & Company LLC is misguided as the California Union court held that the arbitrator exceeded his authority while he acted outside the powers authorized to him by the parties’ agreement. (California Union Square supra 50 CA5th at 348.) The case is distinguishable here because the Arbitrator was acting within his authority to hold that the CORE ADR plan was controlled. Indeed, the California Union court noted that “Even if we may have reached a different conclusion if we were determining the arbitrator's powers in the first instance, “the deference due an [arbitrator] ... requires a court to refrain from substituting its judgment for the arbitrator's in determining the contractual scope of [the arbitrator's] powers. [Citations.]” (Id. at 351.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s contention that it did not agree to the employment ADR in lieu of the other alternative rules falls flat as the acceptance of the employment ADR was specified in the parties’ Arbitration Agreement and “is what the parties bargained for in the arbitration agreement.” ’. (Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1179, 1184; accord, Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 12.)

Therefore, since the Arbitrator did not exceed his authority under the Arbitration Agreement, the Motion is DENIED.[1]

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition to Vacate the Contractual Arbitration Award is DENIED. Instead, the Court confirms the Award. Responding party to prepare a judgment.

[1]With this finding, the Court need not further analyze the merits of Plaintiff’s contentions regarding the Arbitrator’s statute of limitations ruling.