Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV02757, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV02757    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

JASON RAY CASTELLANO,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

NEW PERSPECTIVE RECOVERY, LLC, et al.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)
)

     CASE NO.:  24NNCV02757

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

November 20, 2024

 

)

 

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On July 8, 2024, this wrongful termination action was filed by plaintiff Jason Ray Castellano (“Plaintiff”) against New Perspective Recovery LLC (“NPR”), Benchmark Young Adult School, Inc. (“Benchmark”), Emend Health Corporation (“Emend”), and Emend Healthcare.

On August 12, 2024, NPR, Benchmark, and Emend (collectively, “Defendants”) filed this motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration and stay action.

Plaintiff filed an opposition brief and objection on August 22, 2024.

Defendants filed a reply brief on November 13, 2024.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

In deciding a motion to compel arbitration, trial courts must decide first whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue whether the claims are covered within the scope of the agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) The party seeking arbitration has the “burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, while a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842.) The trial court “sits as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, and any oral testimony the court may receive at its discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Id.) General principles of contract law govern whether parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236; see also Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.)¿

III.        DISCUSSION

“The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.” (Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 581, 586.) Here, Defendants assert that NPR and Plaintiff entered into at-will employment pursuant to an Offer Letter dated June 22, 2023, and a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Employment (“Arbitration Agreement”) dated June 22, 2023. (Motion, p. 1.) Defendants state that Plaintiff began working as a night-shift behavioral health technician beginning on June 28, 2023, and that his employment was terminated on May 14, 2024. Defendants contend that Plaintiff must arbitrate his employment claims pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Christopher Wilson.

The Arbitration Agreement is entered into between NPR and Plaintiff (defined as the “Parties”) and applies to “any claim, complaint or dispute that relates in any way to the Parties’ employment relationship.” (‘Wilson Decl., Ex. B.) However, on August 22, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed NPR from the Complaint. Therefore, the motion, as to NPR, is DENIED as moot. Additionally, since Benchmark and Emend, as the sole remaining defendants, do not contend that a valid arbitration agreement exists between them and Plaintiff, the motion to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against them is DENIED.

IV.        CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.

Dated this 20th day of November, 2024

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.