RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Maria Z. Stearns (State Bar No. 230649) SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA

msteams@mtan_com COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
D'STR'CT
K. Bartlett Jordan (State Bar No. 329893) Sfig‘fémfifi'fiflo
bjordan@rutan-Com By: Gilberto Villegas, DEPUTY
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 7 14-64 1 -5 100
Facsimile: 714-546-9035

Attorneys for Defendants

PACIFIC DENTAL SERVICES, LLC, GERALD LOPEZ,
D.D.S., INC., and GERALD LOPEZ
\OOOQON

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

10

11 ASHLEY PHILLIPS, an individual, Case No. CIVSB2417634

12 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES T0 THE HON.

CARLOS CABRERA, DEPT. $24
13 vs.
DEFENDANTS PACIFIC DENTAL
14 PACIFIC DENTAL SERVICES, LLC, a SERVICES, LLC, GERALD LOPEZ, D.D.S.,
Delaware corporation; GERALD LOPEZ, INC., AND GERALD LOPEZ’S NOTICE OF
15 D.D.S., INC., a California corporation dba MOTION AND MOTION T0 COMPEL
PARKWAY DENTAL GROUP; GERALD ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION;
16 LOPEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 30, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
inclusive, AUTHORITIES
17
Defendants. Hearing Information
18
Date: January 6, 2025
19 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 824
20
Date Action Filed: May 24, 2024
21 Trial Date: None Set

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rutan a Tucker. LLP

attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 0n January 6, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., 0r soon thereafter as this

matter may be heard in Department $24 ofthe above-entitled Court located at 247 West Third Street,

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210, Defendants Pacific Dental Services, LLC (“PDS”), Gerald Lopez,
D.D.S, Inc., and Gerald Lopez (collectively, “Defendants”) will and hereby d0 move the Court

pursuant to section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 4, section 1281.2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, and PDS’s Mutual Binding Arbitration Agreement (the “‘Agreement”) for

an order (1) compelling Plaintiff Ashley Phillips to submit her claims t0 binding arbitration as

required by the Agreement and (2) staying all civil court proceedings pending the completion of

10 such arbitration.

11 As discussed more fully in the accompanying Memorandum 0f Points and Authorities,

12 Plaintiffs claims arise from her employment with PDS and are covered by the Agreement, a valid

13 and binding arbitration agreement. The Agreement, which is governed by the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et

14 seq., requires bilateral arbitration ofany employment-related claims. The offer letter Plaintiff signed

15 on April 20, 2017, states, in relevant part:

16 To the filllest extent allowed by law, any controversy, claim, or dispute between
you and the Company (and/or any of its affiliates, owners, shareholders, directors,
17 officers, employees, volunteers or agents) relating to or arising out of your
employment or the cessation of that employment will be submitted t0 a final and
18
binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator in the county in Which you work(ed)
19 for determination in accordance with the American Arbitration Association’s
(“AAA”) National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes, as the
20 exclusive remedy for such controversy, claim or dispute.

21 (EX. 1 at p. 2.)1 The Agreement Plaintiff signed 0n April 23, 2017, reiterates that:

22 I agree and acknowledge that the Company and I will utilize binding arbitration to
resolve all disputes that may arise out 0f the employment context. Both the
23 Company and I agree that any claim, dispute, and/or controversy that either I may
have against the Company (or its owners, directors, officers, managers, employees,
24
agents, and parties affiliated with its employee benefit and health plans) 0r the

25 Company may have against me, arising from, related to, 0r having any relationship
or connection whatsoever with my seeking employment by, or other association
26 with the Company, shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, and following the procedures of the
27 California Arbitration Act (CA. Code Civ. Proc, sec 1280 et seq.).

28
1
Exhibits 1—2 are attached t0 the concurrently filed Declaration of Tricia Sprowell.
Rutan a Tucker. LLP 2
attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 (Ex. 2 at p. 1.)

As discussed in the concurrently filed Declaration of K. Bartlett Jordan, the parties met and

conferred regarding the substance of this motion. Plaintiff refused to submit her claim to binding

arbitration, as required by the Agreement, but declined to explain the basis for her refusal.

This Motion is based on this Notice 0f Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points

and Authorities, the concurrently filed Declaration of K. Bartlett Jordan and the exhibit thereto; the

concurrently filed Declaration of Tricia Sprowell and the exhibits thereto; all pleadings, papers, and

records in this action; all matters of which judicial notice may be taken; and any other evidence and

any argument as may be presented at the hearing on this matter.

10

11 Dated: September 17, 2024 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP

MARIA Z. STEARNS
12 K. BARTLETT JORDAN

13

14
war ?%o
Maria Z. §{earns
Attorneys for Defendants
15 DENTAL SERVICES, LLC,
PACIFIC
GERALD LOPEZ, D.D.S., INC, and
16 GERALD LOPEZ
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rutan a Tucker, LLP 3

attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
fig;
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 7

RELEVANT BACKGROUND
UIAWN

II. ........................................................................................... 7

A. Plaintiff Enters Into a Valid and Enforceable Arbitration Agreement .................... 7

B. Plaintiff Files this Action, and Defendants Move t0 Compel

Arbitration ............................................................................................................... 9

\OOOQON
III. LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................... 10

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 1 1

A. The Arbitration Agreement Is Governed by the Federal Arbitration

10 Act ......................................................................................................................... 1 1

11 B. Both California and Federal Law Strongly Favor Arbitration

Agreements ............................................................................................................ 12
12
C. The Arbitration Agreement Requires Plaintiff t0 Arbitrate Her
13 Claims .................................................................................................................... 13

14 1. Plaintiff Is Bound by the Arbitration Agreement ...................................... 13

15 2. Plaintiff s Claims are Covered by the Arbitration Agreement .................. 14

16 D. This Case Should be Stayed Pending the Outcome of Arbitration ....................... 14

17 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 14

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rutan a Tucker. LLP 4

attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Pageg s [I

3 Cases

4 Allied—Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson

(1995) 513 U.S. 265 ................................................................................................................ 11
5

American Express C0. v. Italian Colors Restaurant

6
(2013) 570 U.S. 228 ................................................................................................................ 12

7
AT&TMobility, LLC v. Concepcion
8 (201 1) 563 U.S. 333 ................................................................................................................ 10

9 Basura v. US. Home Corp.

(2002) 98 Ca1.App.4th 1205 .................................................................................................... ll
1 0
CarMax Auto Superstores Cal. LLC v. Hernandez
11
(CD. Cal. 2015) 94 F.Supp3d 1078 ....................................................................................... 11

12
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams
13 (2001) 532 U.S. 105 ................................................................................................................ 10

14 Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross ofCalz'fomia

(2000) 83 Ca1.App.4th 677 ...................................................................................................... 13
15
Diaz Sohnen Enterprises
v.
16
(2019) 34 Ca1.App.5th 126 ...................................................................................................... 13

17
Dotson v. Amgen, Inc.

18 (2010) 181 Ca1.App.4th 975 .................................................................................................... 11

19 Esparza v. K S Industries, L.P.

(2017) 13 Ca1.App.5th 1228 .................................................................................................... 13
20
Fire Fighters Union Etc. v. Vallejo
21 (1974) 12 Ca1.3d 608 ............................................................................................................... 12

22 Green Tree Fin. C0rp.—Ala. v. Randolph

(2000) 531 U.S. 79 .................................................................................................................. 13
23

24 Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown

(2012) 565 U.S. 530 ................................................................................................................ 12
25
Moses H. Cone Mem ’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.
26 (1983) 460 U.S. 1 .............................................................................................................. 11, 14

27 Pagarigan Libby CarexCenter, Inc.

v.

(2002) 99 Ca1.App.4th 298 ...................................................................................................... 10

28

Rutan a Tucker, LLP 5

attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 Pagegsz

Perry v. Thomas
(1987) 482 U.S. 483 ................................................................................................................ 12

4;
Pinnacle Museum Towers Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (U. S), LLC
(2016) 55 Cal.4th 223 .............................................................................................................. 10

Preston v. Ferrer
(2008) 552 U.S. 346 ................................................................................................................ 10

\OOONQUI
Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.
(1996) 14 Ca1.4th 394 .............................................................................................................. 10

St. Agnes Med. Center v. PacifiCare ofCal.

(2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187 ............................................................................................................ 12

10
Valsan Partners Ltd. Partnership v. Calcor Facility
11 (1994) 25 Ca1.App.4th 809 ...................................................................................................... 12

12 Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC

(2020) 46 Ca1.App.5th 337 ...................................................................................................... 11
13
Wagner Constr. C0. v. Pacific Mechanic Corp.
14
(2007) 41 Ca1.4th 19 ................................................................................................................ 11

15
Statutes

16
9 U.S.C. § 2 ................................................................................................................................... 11

17
9 U.S.C. § 3 ................................................................................................................................... 14
18
9 U.S.C. §4 ............................................................................................................................. 13, 14
19
Code CiV. Proc., § 1281.2 ............................................................................................................. 13
20
Code CiV. Proc., § 1281.4 ............................................................................................................. 14
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rutan a Tucker. LLP 6

attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 23, 2017, Plaintiff Ashley Phillips (“Plaintiff”) signed a Mutual Binding
UI-bbJN

Arbitration Agreement (the “Agreement”). (Ex. 2.)2 The Agreement, which is governed by the

Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), states that “the Company and I will utilize binding arbitration to

resolve all disputes that may arise out of the employment context.” (Id. at p. 1.) The Agreement

applies to any employment-related claim Plaintiff “may have against the Company (0r its owners,
\OOOQON

directors, officers, managers, employees, agents, and parties affiliated with its employee benefit and

health plans),” including California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims. (Ibid)

10 Despite having signed a valid, binding arbitration agreement, Plaintiff initiated this action

11 on May 24, 2024, by filing a Complaint alleging 12 employment-related causes of action against

12 Defendants Pacific Dental Services, LLC (“PDS”), Gerald Lopez, D.D.S, Inc., and Gerald Lopez

13 (collectively, “Defendants”). (See generally Compl.) A11 of Plaintiffs claims fall within the scope

14 of the Agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff should be compelled t0 arbitrate her claims against

15 Defendants consistent with the terms of the Agreement she signed. This Court should therefore

16 enforce the Agreement, compel Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration, and stay all civil court proceedings

17 pending the outcome of arbitration.

18 II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

19 PDS is a Delaware Limited Liability Company that provides business support services to

20 dental offices across the United States. (Sprowell Decl., 1} 2.) Since January 2013, PDS has

21 purchased over $50,000 in goods and services from businesses located outside of California each

22 year. (Ibid.) In 2020, for example, PDS purchased over $500,000 of general dentistry supplies and

23 products from New York-based Henry Schein, Inc. (Ibid) PDS also spent more than $500,000 0n

24 large-scale dental equipment from Minnesota-based Patterson Dental Supply, Inc., in 2020. (Ibid)

25 A. Plaintiff Enters Into a Valid and Enforceable Arbitration Agreement

26 Potential PDS employees are interviewed by a recruiter and a hiring manager. (Sprowell

27
2
Exhibits 1—2 are attached to the concurrently filed Declaration of Tricia Sprowell (“Sprowell
28 Decl.”). Exhibit 3 is attached to the concurrently filed Declaration of K. Bartlett Jordan (“Jordan
Decl.”).
Rutan a Tucker. LLP 7
attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 Dec1., 11 4.) If, after the interview, the hiring manager wishes to offer employment to a candidate,

the manager does so by logging into PDS’S recruiting system and instructing the system to issue an

offer letter to the candidate. (Ibid.) The offer letter is auto-generated and is sent to the candidate

using the email address in the candidate’s employment application. (Ibid.) If the candidate wishes

to accept the offer of employment, the candidate electronically signs the offer letter. (Ibid)

On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff received an offer letter from PDS for a position as a Registered

Dental Assistant (the “Offer Letter”). (Sprowell Decl., 11

7 & Ex. 1.) The Offer Letter detailed the

terms 0f the offer, including Plaintiff’ s pay rate and benefits, and noted that:

To the fullest extent allowed by law, any controversy, claim, or dispute between
you and the Company (and/or any of its affiliates, owners, shareholders, directors,
10 officers, employees, volunteers or agents) relating to or arising out of your
employment or the cessation 0f that employment will be submitted t0 a final and
11
binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator in the county in which you work(ed)
12 for determination in accordance with the American Arbitration Association’s
(“AAA”) National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes, as the
13 exclusive remedy for such controversy, claim or dispute.

14 (EX. 1 at p. 2.) The Offer Letter also stated that “BY AGREEING TO THIS ARBITRATION

15 PROVISION, BOTH YOU AND THE COMPANY GIVE UP ALL RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY
16 JURY.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff signified her acceptance 0f these terms by electronically signing the Offer

17 Letter on April 20, 2017. (Id. at p. 3.)

18 Once a candidate accepts an offer letter, PDS’s recruiting system notifies PDS’s People

19 Services Center, also known as Workday, Which then generates a link and password for the new

20 employee to complete their initial onboarding. (Sprowell Dec1., 1] 5.) This auto-generated link and

21 password is sent to the new employee at the email address the employee provided with their

22 employment application. (Ibid.) The initial onboarding documents new employees receive include

23 an Agreement. (Ibid.) A11 individuals who received an Agreement are required t0 log into PDS’s

24 People Services Center using the link and password they were sent to review and electronically sign

25 the Agreement. (Ibid)

26 The Agreement states, in relevant part, that:

27 I agree and acknowledge that the Company and I will utilize binding arbitration to
resolve all disputes that may arise out of the employment context. Both the
28 Company and I agree that any claim, dispute, and/or controversy that either I may
Rutan a Tucker. LLP 8
attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 have against the Company (0r its owners, directors, officers, managers, employees,
agents, and parties affiliated with its employee benefit and health plans) 0r the
Company may have against me, arising from, related to, 0r having any relationship
or connection whatsoever with my seeking employment by, or other association
With the Company, shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, and following the procedures of the
01th California Arbitration Act (CA. Code Civ. Proc, sec 1280 et seq.).

(Ex. 2 at p. 1.) The Agreement explains, under the header “Included Claims,” that it applies to:
QON

[A]11 disputes, whether they be based on the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or any other
Title
state 0r federal law or regulation, equitable law, or otherwise, with exception 0f
claims arising under the National Labor Relations Act Which are brought before the
National Labor Relations Board, claims for medical and disability benefits under
10 the California Workers’ Compensation Act, Employment Development
Department claims, or as otherwise required by state 0r federal law.
11

12 (Ibid.) The Agreement briefly explains the arbitration procedures and contains a severability clause.

13 (Id. at p. 2.) And the Agreement notes that “your agreement is confirmed by your signature below

14 or by your acceptance or continuation of employment upon notice of this policy.” (Id. at p. 1.)

15 On April 23, 2017, Plaintiff electronically signed the Agreement. (Sprowell Decl., 11
9 &
16 Ex. 2 at p. 4.) Only an individual using Plaintiffs unique login and password could have

17 electronically signed the Agreement after reviewing it. (Sprowell Dec1., 1] 9.) The signature date

18 for the CA — Mutual Binding Arbitration Agreement indicates the Agreement was signed on April

19 23, 2017, at 6:01 pm. (Ibid)

20 B. Plaintiff Files this Action, and Defendants Move t0 Compel Arbitration

21 On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint alleging 12 causes of

22 action, all 0f Which arose out of and related to her employment with Defendants. (See generally

23 Compl.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleged causes of action for (1) discrimination based on physical

24 disability, (2) discrimination based on race, (3) failure to accommodate actual or perceived

25 disability, (4) failure to engage in good faith interactive process, (5) failure to prevent discriminatory

26 practices, (6) Fair Employment and Housing Act retaliation, (7) retaliation for requesting/taking

27 California Family Rights Act leave, (8) failure to pay minimum wage, (9) failure to pay wages, (10)

28 failure to comply With employment wage statement and record provisions, (1 1) statutory waiting

Rutan 8 Tucker. LLP 9

attorneys at Jaw DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 time penalties, and (12) wrongful termination in Violation of public policy. (Ibid)

Defendants filed a timely answer t0 Plaintiff s Complaint 0n August 14, 2024. Defendants

asserted, as their first affirmative defense, that Plaintiff was required to pursue her claims in

arbitration, and not in court:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Arbitration Agreement)
1. The Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, is barred
to the extent that Plaintiff has entered into an arbitration agreement With Defendants
providing for private, individual arbitration 0f employment-related claims and has
thus foregone the ability to pursue claims in civil court. Defendants hereby
expressly reserve all rights to enforce such agreement.

10 (Answer at p. 1.)

11 On August 28, 2024, Defendants reminded Plaintiff‘s counsel that Plaintiff had signed the

12 Agreement and that her employment-related claims must therefore be heard in arbitration, and not

13 in court, and resent the previously produced Agreement to Plaintiff” s counsel. (Jordan Decl., 11
3 &
14 Ex. 3.) Plaintiff refused t0 move this action in arbitration as required by the Agreement, and

15 Defendants promptly prepared this motion and scheduled a hearing before this Court. (Id., W 3—4.)
16 III. LEGAL STANDARD
17 A party seeking t0 compel arbitration need only show, by a preponderance of evidence, that
18 a written arbitration agreement exists which covers the disputed issues. (Pinnacle Museum Towers

19 Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (U. S.), LLC (2016) 55 Ca1.4th 223, 236 (Pinnacle);

20 Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413—414; Pagarigan

21 v. Libby CarexCenter, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 298, 301.) Once the party seeking to compel

22 arbitration has shown that an arbitration agreement exists, “the party opposing arbitration bears the

23 burden of proving any defense.” (Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236.)

24 The FAA reflects the well—established policy favoring arbitration. (See, e.g., AT&T
25 Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 346; Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams (2001)

26 532 U.S. 105, 1 18, 119.) The FAA preempts all conflicting state laws. (See Preston v. Ferrer (2008)

27 552 U.S. 346, 353.) The public policy favoring arbitration is s0 strong that the U.S. Supreme Court

28 and the California Supreme Court have ruled that any doubts as t0 the existence of an arbitration

Rutan a Tucker. LLP 10

attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 agreement, or the scope of issues involved, must be resolved in favor of alternative dispute

resolution and against a jury trial. (Moses H. Cone Mem ’l

Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983)

460 U.S. 1, 24 (Moses H. Cone); Wagner Constr. C0. v. Pacific Mechanic Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th

19, 26.)

IV. ARGUMENT
The exclusive venue for Plaintiffs claims lies in arbitration. Pursuant to the parties’

Agreement, Plaintiff must “resolve all disputes that may arise out of the employment context” in

arbitration. Once Plaintiffs claims are compelled to arbitration, this case should be stayed to

preserve the resources of the parties, promote judicial efficiency, and preclude potentially

10 conflicting results.

11 A. The Arbitration Agreement Is Governed by the Federal Arbitration Act

12 Plaintiff cannot dispute that the Agreement is governed by the FAA. The Agreement

13 expressly states that any disputes between the parties “shall be submitted to and determined

14 exclusively by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.” (EX. 2 at p. 1.) This, alone,

15 is sufficient to bring the Agreement Within the FAA’S ambit. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties
16 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 346.)

17 In addition, the FAA applies t0 agreements “involving commerce.” (9 U.S.C. § 2.) “[T]he

18 term ‘involving commerce’ is broad and is indeed the functional equivalent of ‘affecting’

19 commerce.” (Basura v. U.S. Home Corp. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1213; accord Allied—Bruce

20 Terminix Cos. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265, 273—274, 281 (Allied—Bruce) [explaining that the

21 FAA’s reach “coincid[es] With that of the Commerce Clause” and encompasses transactions that

22 “‘involve’ interstate commerce, even if the parties did not contemplate an interstate commerce

23 connection”].) Courts have held that the FAA applies t0 employment contracts when the employer
24 engages in business that affects interstate commerce. (See, e.g., Dotson v. Amgen, Inc. (2010) 181

25 Cal.App.4th 975, 979; Allied-Bruce, supra, 513 U.S. at 277; CarMax Auto Superstores Cal. LLC v.
26 Hernandez (C.D. Cal. 2015) 94 F.Supp.3d 1078, 1100—1 101 .) The FAA applies here because PDS
27 provides business support services to dental offices throughout the United States, and Plaintiffs job

28 duties required her to use products that PDS purchased from suppliers outside of California and

Rutan a Tucker. LLP l 1

attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 subsequently provided to Plaintiff. (Sprowell Decl., 11 2.)

B. Both California and Federal Law Strongly Favor Arbitration Agreements

Both federal and California law strongly favor the arbitration of disputes. (See, e.g. Perry

v. Thomas (1987) 482 U.S. 483, 489 [interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act as “a congressional

declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any state

substantive or procedural policies to the contrary”]; St. Agnes Med. Center v. PacifiCare 0f Cal.

(2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1195 [ noting that “state law, like [federal law], reflects a strong policy

favoring arbitration agreements”].) California has long favored arbitration of disputes according to

the terms of the parties’ agreement. (Fire Fighters Union Etc. v. Vallejo (1974) 12 Ca1.3d 608, 622

10 [affirming order compelling arbitration, and explaining “[s]uch a result comports with a strong

11 public policy in California favoring peaceful resolution 0f employment disputes by means 0f

12 arbitration”].)

13 The California Legislature has enshrined the state’s strong preference for arbitration in the

14 California Arbitration Act (“CAA”):

15 TitleIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (Cal. CiV. Proc. Code § 1280 et seq.) is a
comprehensive statutory scheme regulating private arbitration. Through this
16 detailed scheme, the Legislature has expressed a strong public policy in favor of
arbitration. . . . As a result, courts will indulge every intendment to give effect to
17
such proceedings.
18

19 (Valsan Partners Ltd. Partnership v. Calcor Facility (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 816.)

20 The policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements according to their terms has

21 consistently been emphasized in recent decisions by the nation’s highest court. For example, in

22 American Express C0. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court 0f

23 Appeals” refusal t0 grant a motion t0 compel individual arbitration in a putative class—action case,

24 remarking that “courts must ‘rigorously enforce’ arbitration agreements according to their terms.”

25 ((2013) 570 U.S. 228, 233.) Other recent Supreme Court decisions have similarly upheld arbitration

26 agreements. (See, e.g., Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown (2012) 565 U.S. 530, 530—31

27 [vacating Virginia Supreme Court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement on state public

28 policy ground because “[s]tate and federal courts must enforce the [FAA] . . . with respect to all

Rutan a Tucker. LLP 12

attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 arbitration agreements covered by that statute”].)

C. The Arbitration Agreement Requires Plaintiff t0 Arbitrate Her Claims

When there is an enforceable arbitration agreement, the court “shall make an order directing

the parties to proceed t0 arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement.” (9 U.S.C. § 4;

accord Code CiV. Proc., § 1281.2.) In California state court, this result is accomplished pursuant to

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, which provides that a party seeking to compel arbitration

need only show: (1) “the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy”; and (2) the

opposing party’s refusal “to arbitrate such controversy.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Where such

a showing is made, “the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the

10 controversy,” absent waiver or grounds for revocation. (Ibid., emphasis added; see also Coast Plaza

11 Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross ofCaliform'a (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 687.) The “party resisting

12 arbitration bears the burden of proving the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration.” (Green

13 Tree Fin. C0rp.—Ala. v. Randolph (2000) 531 U.S. 79, 91.)

14 1. Plaintiff Is Bound by the Arbitration Agreement

15 Plaintiff is bound by the Agreement. Her Offer Letter, Which she signed on April 20, 2017,

16 contained an arbitration provision that expressly stated she would be required to submit “any

17 controversy, claim, 0r dispute between you and the Company . . . relating to or arising out of your

18 employment . . . to a final and binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator.” (Ex. 1 at p. 2.) The

19 Agreement she signed three days later, on April 23, 2017, reiterated that “the Company and I will

20 utilize binding arbitration to resolve all disputes that may arise out of the employment context.”

21 (Ex. 2 at pp. 1 & 4.) Only Plaintiff could have signed this Agreement, as she was the only individual

22 who received the unique login and password that was issued to Plaintiff by PDS’s People Services

23 Center. (Sprowell Decl., 1] 9.) But even ifPlaintiffhad not signed the Agreement—which she did—

24 she manifested her consent to arbitration by her “acceptance or continuation of employment upon

25 notice ofthis policy.” (Ibid; see, e.g., Esparza v. K S Industries, L.P. (2017) 13 Ca1.App.5th 1228,

26 1238 [“Under California law, consent t0 a written contract may be implied by conduct.”]; Diaz v.

27 Sohnen Enterprises (2019) 34 Ca1.App.5th 126, 130 [same].)

28

Rutan a Tucker. LLP 13

attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION
 2. Plaintiff’s Claims are Covered by the Arbitration Agreement

Plaintiff s claims are squarely covered by the Agreement. The agreement covers “all

disputes that may arise out of the employment context.” (EX. 2 at p. 1.) Each and every one of

Plaintiffs claims—for alleged discrimination on the basis of race and disability, alleged failure to

accommodate her purported disability and engage in the interactive process, alleged failure to

prevent discrimination, alleged FEHA and California Family Rights Act retaliation, alleged wage

and hour Violations, and alleged wrongful termination in Violation of public policy—arises out of

her employment with Defendants, and thus falls squarely within this rubric. (See generally Compl.)

D. This Case Should be Stayed Pending the Outcome of Arbitration

10 Once Plaintiff” s claims are compelled t0 arbitration, this action should be stayed. The FAA
11 requires that a civil action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. (9 U.S.C. § 3; Moses H.

12 Cone, supra, 460 U.S. at p. 22 [“The Act provides two parallel devices for enforcing an arbitration

13 agreement: a stay 0f litigation in any case raising a dispute referable t0 arbitration, 9 U.S.C. § 3, and

14 an affirmative order to engage in arbitration, § 4.”].). California law requires the same. (Code CiV.

15 Proc., § 128 1 .4 [noting that once a court has issued an order compelling arbitration, that court “shall,

16 upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration

17 is had”].) This is appropriate, as allowing civil court and arbitration proceedings to proceed in

18 parallel would waste the parties’ and judicial resources and could allow contrary results.

19 V. CONCLUSION
20 This Court should issue an order compelling Plaintiff t0 submit her claims t0 binding

21 arbitration in accordance With the Agreement and staying this action pending the completion of

22 arbitration.

23 Dated: September 17, 2024 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP

MARIA Z. STEARNS
24 K. BARTLETT JORDAN

25

26

27
Ww/%§
Maria Z. 8&4rns
Attorneys for Defendants
DENTAL SERVICES, LLC,
PACIFIC
GERALD LOPEZ, D.D.S., INC., and
28 GERALD LOPEZ
Rutan a Tucker. LLP 14
attorneys at law DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION