Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV36483, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV36483 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: March
20, 2024
CASE NAME: Deanna
Cordova v. McIntire Real Estate, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: 22STCV36483
MOTION
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
McIntire Real Estate Inc. dba McIntire Kingstone
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of March 15, 2024
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order compelling arbitration and a stay of proceedings pending arbitration.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED;
2. The
case is STAYED pending arbitration.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff Deanna Cordova (Plaintiff)
filed a Complaint against Defendants McIntire Real Estate Inc., McIntire Real
Estate Inc. dba McIntire Management, McIntire Real Estate Inc. dba McIntire
Kingstone, and Lamont Young (Defendants) with eight causes of action for: (1)
Discrimination in Violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq; (2) Harassment in
Violation of Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (3) Retaliation in Violation of Gov.
Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (4) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment and
Retaliation in Violation of Gov. Code § 12940(k); (5) For Declaratory Judgment;
(6) Retaliation (Lab. Code §§ 1102.5, 1102.6); (7) Wrongful Termination in
Violation of Public Policyl and (8) Failure to Permit Inspection of Personnel
and Payroll Records (Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5).
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendants
as a Senior Property Manager from February 8, 2021 to November 17, 2021. Plaintiff
alleges she was harassed by Defendant Young and that management did not
intervene. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated her
after she complained about Defendant Young’s behavior.
On April 14, 2023, Defendant McIntire Real Estate Inc. dba
McIntire Kingstone filed an Answer.
On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for
Dismissal as to Defendants McIntire Real Estate Inc. dba McIntire Management
and McIntire Real Estate Inc. dba McIntire Kingstone only.
On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to
Complaint, Incorrect Name, as to McIntire Real Estate Inc. with true name
McIntire Real Estate Inc. dba McIntire Kingstone and McIntire Management.
On February 2, 2024, Moving Defendant McIntire Real Estate
dba McIntire Kingstone (Moving Defendant) filed the instant motion to compel
arbitration. Oppositions were due on or before March 7, 2024. As of March 15,
2024, there is no opposition filed with the court.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Under California
law, the trial court has authority to compel arbitration pursuant to CCP
§1281.2 where a written agreement for such arbitration exists and one of the
parties refuses to arbitrate.¿ Specifically, the statute provides that, “[o]n
petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a
written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses
to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the
respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement
arbitrate the controversy exists.”¿ The statute further sets forth four grounds
upon which the trial court may refuse to compel arbitration: (a) the right to
compel arbitration was waived, (b) recission of the agreement, (c) there is a
pending action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the
same transaction; and (d) petitioner is a state or federally chartered
depository institution.¿
“[T]he
petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration
agreement by the preponderance of the evidence . . . .”¿¿(Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc.¿(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th
1276, 1284¿(Guiliano).)¿“In
determining whether an arbitration agreement applies to a specific dispute, the
court may examine only the agreement itself and the complaint filed by the
party refusing arbitration [citation]. The court should attempt to give effect
to the parties' intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the
contractual language and the¿circumstances under which the agreement was
made.”¿¿(Weeks v. Crow¿(1980) 113
Cal.App.3d 350, 353.)¿ “To determine whether a contractual arbitration clause
requires arbitration of a particular controversy, the controversy is first
identified and the issue is whether that controversy is within the scope of the
contractual arbitration clause.”¿¿(Titolo¿v.
Cano¿(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 310, 316.)¿ “Doubts as to whether an
arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor
of sending the parties to arbitration. The court should order them to arbitrate
unless it is clear that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to cover
the dispute.”¿¿(California Correctional
Peace Officers¿Ass'n¿v. State¿(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 198, 205.)¿¿¿¿
¿
“[A] party
opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence any fact necessary to its defense. [Citation.] In these summary
proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the
affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral
testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final
determination.”¿¿(Giuliano, supra, at
p. 1284.)¿¿
ANALYSIS:
Existence of
Arbitration Agreement
In determining
the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, the court considers “two
‘gateway issues’ of arbitrability: (1) whether there was an agreement to
arbitrate between the parties, and (2) whether the agreement covered the
dispute at issue.”¿ (Omar v. Ralphs
Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961 (Omar).)¿¿¿¿¿
1. Agreement
Between Parties:
The moving party
can meet its initial burden of proving the existence of an arbitration
agreement by attaching a copy of the Agreement to this motion bearing the
signature of the opposing party. (See Bannister
v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 541, 541-543 [“The party
seeking arbitration can meet its initial burden by attaching to the petition a
copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the¿respondent's
signature.”].) Alternatively, the moving party can meet its initial burden by
setting forth the agreement’s provisions in the motion. (See Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1330; see also Condee v.
Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)
Here, Moving Defendant met their initial burden because
they attached a copy of the Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA) with Plaintiff’s
electronic signature. (Declaration of Amanda Bernasconi (Bernasconi Decl.) ¶ 2,
Exhibit A.)
“If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden
and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the
opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the
authenticity of the agreement.” (Gamboa
v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158,165 (Gamboa).) The evidence must be
sufficient to create a factual dispute to shift the burden back to the
arbitration proponent who retains the ultimate burden of proving, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the authenticity of the signature. (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87
Cal.App.5th 747, 755 (Iyere).)
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, therefore, has not
opposed the validity of her electronic signature.
Therefore, the Defendant has established that the
Arbitration Agreement exists.
2. The Agreement Covers the Dispute at Issue:
Applicability of DRA
to Subject Dispute
Defendant contends the DRA covers the subject dispute
because Plaintiff filed an employment action that is not otherwise excluded by
the DRA. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
Here, the DRA applies to the instant dispute. First, the DRA
states it covers “all disputes that might arise out of or be related in any way
to [Plaintiff’s] employment by the Company” including “wrongful termination,
discrimination, harassment, [and] retaliation . . . .” [Bernasconi Decl.,
Exhibit A.] Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants concerns her employment with
them and are not otherwise carved out.
Therefore, the DRA applies to the subject dispute.
Defenses to
Arbitration
Once it is
determined that a valid arbitration agreement exists, the burden shifts to the
opposing party to “prove by a preponderance of the evidence any defense to the
petition.” (Lacayo v. Catalina Restaurant
Group Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 244, 257, review denied (Nov. 13, 2019)).¿
Here, Plaintiff
has not filed an opposition raising defenses to enforcement. As such, the court
declines to advance that discussion.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1.Motion to Compel Arbitration is
GRANTED;
2.The case is STAYED pending
arbitration.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court