Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV17690, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17690    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: 45

ALEGRIA V. NORDSTROM, INC.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Date of Hearing:          1/30/2025                               Trial Date:       N/A

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         24STCV17690

Moving Party:             Defendant Nordstrom, Inc.

Responding Party:       Plaintiff Clarissha Alegria [NO OPPOSITION FILED]

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Defendants’ motion is granted. The action is stayed pending the outcome of binding arbitration.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Clarissha Alegria (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against defendants Nordstrom, Inc. and Rebekkah Bax (“Defendants”) on July 16, 2024, asserting claims for (1) disability discrimination, (2) harassment on the basis of disability, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) CFRA retaliation, and (5) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment.

On December 19, 2024, Defendants moved to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims against them. Defendants timely served their motion on Plaintiff’s counsel by regular and electronic mail. Plaintiff filed no opposition, and Defendants no reply.

DISCUSSION

“[U]nder both [federal] and California law, ‘arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’” (Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence.  (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)  A petition to compel arbitration must allege both a “written agreement to arbitrate” the controversy, and that a party to that agreement “refuses to arbitrate” the controversy. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) It then becomes plaintiff’s burden, in opposing the motion, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to her opposition. (Ibid.)

Nordstrom’s Custodian of Records authenticates a Dispute Resolution Agreement (“DRA”) electronically signed by Plaintiff during her onboarding process. (Fischbeck Decl., ¶¶ 7-15 and Exhs. A-B.) Plaintiff filed no opposition denying its authenticity. Defendants have established a written arbitration exists that covers this controversy.

Defendants’ counsel attests that Plaintiff’s counsel has refused to stipulate to arbitration. (Zargarof Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendants have established Plaintiff has refused to arbitrate.

Defendants have shifted the burden to Plaintiff to establish why the DRA should not be enforced. As no opposition was filed, plaintiff has failed to meet her burden.

The motion is granted.