Case Number: 19STCV34373 Hearing Date: February 28, 2020 Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

joan hart,

Plaintiff,

vs.

cedars sinai medical center, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

19STCV34373

Hearing Date:

February 28, 2020

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Background

Plaintiff Joan Hart (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action on September 26, 2019 against Defendants Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Cedars Sinai Health Systems, and Cedars Sinai Health Services. The Complaint asserts causes of action for violation of the constitutional right to privacy, employment discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate disability, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Defendants Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Cedars-Sinai Health System (jointly, “Defendants”) now move to compel arbitration of all of Plaintiff’s claims and to stay this action pending completion of arbitration, pursuant to a binding arbitration agreement executed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposes.

Legal Standard

In a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement and that the dispute is covered by the agreement. The burden then shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a ground for denial (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.). (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414; Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.)

Generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.)

“California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.) “This strong policy has resulted in the general rule that arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.” (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted].) This is in accord with the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which governs all agreements to arbitrate in contracts “involving interstate commerce.” (9 U.S.C. § 2, et seq.; Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.)

Discussion

Existence of Arbitration Agreement

A party moving to compel arbitration can establish that an arbitration agreement exists simply by attaching a copy of the agreement to its petition without necessarily following the “normal procedures of document authentication.” (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1058; see also Condee v. Longwood Management Corp., supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 219 [“A plain reading of the statute indicates that as a preliminary matter the court is only required to make a finding of the agreement’s existence, not an evidentiary determination of its validity.”].)

Defendants presents evidence that on or about January 3, 2008, Plaintiff signed a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims as part of her acceptance of an offer of employment from Defendants. (Hickey Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. 1.) The arbitration agreement provides that “except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, you and Cedars-Sinai agree to submit all claims or controversies in any way relating to or associated with your employment or the termination of employment (“Claims”), to the Conflict Resolution Procedure of the Medical Center.” (Hickey Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 1.) The agreement goes on to state that “[i]f a Claim is not resolved by the Conflict Resolution Procedure, and if the Claim demands $25,000.00 or more, you and Cedars-Sinai agree that the Claim will be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration.” (Hickey Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 1.)

Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is ineffective to require arbitration of her claims because it is conditioned on first undergoing the Conflict Resolution Procedure referenced in the agreement. Plaintiff asserts that she did not submit her claims to the Conflict Resolution Procedure. (Hart Decl., ¶ 4.) But Plaintiff does not address the fact that the arbitration agreement itself addresses what happens if the “condition precedent” is not met. If the Conflict Resolution Procedure does not resolve the claims at issue, and if the claims are for $25,000 or more, then the claims “will be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration.” Here, the evidence shows that the Conflict Resolution Procedure did not resolve Plaintiff’s claims because Plaintiff’s claims were never submitted to the Conflict Resolution Procedure.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have established that an arbitration agreement exists and that it covers the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Grounds to Deny Arbitration

Plaintiff does not argue that a ground for denial of arbitration exists.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is granted. The entire action is stayed pending completion of arbitration of Plaintiff’s arbitrable claims against Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

The Court sets an arbitration completion status conference on February 26, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 50. The parties are ordered to file a joint report regarding the status of the arbitration by February 12, 2021, with a courtesy copy delivered directly to Department 50.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this Order.

DATED: February 28, 2020

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court