Preview
RULINGS FOR September 3, 2022
Department $24 - Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF
THE RULING.
C NSEQ’ZOQQOg F LE n
ALEXISMONTOYA MWm—WMW p
V'
F:
f‘
3i} 2112.2
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. [f ‘
‘
‘
.
BY
Motion: Compel Arbitration-REVISED WWW ME ”NM fjgf‘UW
Movant: Defendant Medline Industries, L.P. fka Medline Industries, Inc.
Respondent: Plaintiff Alexis Montoya
Analysis
Defendant Medline argues per a delegation clause within the arbitration clause of the
“Employment and Confidentiality Agreement” (“Agreement”) that the arbitrator is to determine the scope
and enforcement of the arbitration provision. Nevertheless, the Court must first determine the gateway
issue of whether a contract was formed. (Mendoza v. Trans Valley Transport (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 758,
776 [“Based on these authorities, we conclude that although the delegation clause provides that the
arbitrator ‘shall have exclusive authority t0 resolve any dispute relating t0 formation ofthe arbitration
policy,’ as a matter of law, the question whether the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate
anything at all is for a court to decide.”]; Ahlstrom v. DH] Mortg. C0., LP. (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 63 1,
635.)
Initially, to the extent that a contractual relationship exists between Medline and Montoya, the
FAA will apply to the arbitration.‘ The arbitration clause within the Agreement states, “Notwithstanding
1
The FAA applies to arbitration clauses involving interstate commerce. (9 U.S.C. §2;
Aviation Data, Inc. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (2007) 152
v.
Cal.App.4th 1522, 1534.) “Involving commerce” is the equivalent of the term “affecting
commerce,” which is a term of art ordinarily signaling the broadest permissible exercise of
Congress’s commerce clause power. (Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc. (2003) 439 U.S. 52, 56.)
Page |
1
any other provision of this agreement, this Arbitration Provision is governed by the Federal Arbitration
Act (9 U.S.C. §1 et seq.)” (Exh. I [113(d), p. 4] to Gray’s Decl.) As the arbitration provision provides for
the FAA to govern, then it governs. (Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th
376, 394; Aviation Data, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. (2007) 152
Cal.App.4th 1522, 1534-35.)
Was a contractual relationshipformed? The answer is yes.
A contract is formed when there are parties capable of contracting who consent to a lawful
objective and there is a sufficient cause or consideration. (Civ. Code, §1550.)
From the undisputed evidence, after being hired, Plaintiff Montoya was provided a link to
complete onboarding documents, which would have included the Agreement. T0 complete the
onboarding documents, the new hire must log in with their usemame and password. On March 8, 2019,
Montoya accessed the Transitions Portal. She acknowledged and electronically signed the Agreement at
4:13 p.m. (Gray Decl. at 11116-10, 13, Exhs. D & G-H.)
Arbitration is ordered if an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists; an agreement only needs
t0 be found to exist, not an evidentiary determination of its validity. (Condee v. Longwood Management
Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-19.) The defendant providing an executed copy of the arbitration
agreement satisfies the initial burden. (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016)
246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1058-60.) The burden then shifts to the plaintiffto dispute the signature. (Id. at p.
1059; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.)
Yet Plaintiff does not dispute the evidence 0f her electronically signing the Agreement. She
merely argues (without evidentiary support) that she has no recollection of signing the Agreement. But
the lack of recalling signing the Agreement is not sufficient to dispute that she did sign it under the
evidence presented herein, i.e., the only means to access the Agreement as part of the onboarding process
The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating FAA coverage by declarations and other
evidence. (Shepard v. Edward Mackay Enterprises,
(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1101;
Inc.
Woolls v. Superior Court (Turner) (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 197, 213-14.)
Page 2 |
Preview
RULINGS FOR September 3, 2022 Department $24 - Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE RULING. C NSEQ’ZOQQOg F LE n ALEXISMONTOYA MWm—WMW p V' F: f‘ 3i} 2112.2 MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. [f ‘ ‘ ‘ . BY Motion: Compel Arbitration-REVISED WWW ME ”NM fjgf‘UW Movant: Defendant Medline Industries, L.P. fka Medline Industries, Inc. Respondent: Plaintiff Alexis Montoya Analysis Defendant Medline argues per a delegation clause within the arbitration clause of the “Employment and Confidentiality Agreement” (“Agreement”) that the arbitrator is to determine the scope and enforcement of the arbitration provision. Nevertheless, the Court must first determine the gateway issue of whether a contract was formed. (Mendoza v. Trans Valley Transport (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 758, 776 [“Based on these authorities, we conclude that although the delegation clause provides that the arbitrator ‘shall have exclusive authority t0 resolve any dispute relating t0 formation ofthe arbitration policy,’ as a matter of law, the question whether the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate anything at all is for a court to decide.”]; Ahlstrom v. DH] Mortg. C0., LP. (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 63 1, 635.) Initially, to the extent that a contractual relationship exists between Medline and Montoya, the FAA will apply to the arbitration.‘ The arbitration clause within the Agreement states, “Notwithstanding 1 The FAA applies to arbitration clauses involving interstate commerce. (9 U.S.C. §2; Aviation Data, Inc. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (2007) 152 v. Cal.App.4th 1522, 1534.) “Involving commerce” is the equivalent of the term “affecting commerce,” which is a term of art ordinarily signaling the broadest permissible exercise of Congress’s commerce clause power. (Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc. (2003) 439 U.S. 52, 56.) Page | 1 any other provision of this agreement, this Arbitration Provision is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §1 et seq.)” (Exh. I [113(d), p. 4] to Gray’s Decl.) As the arbitration provision provides for the FAA to govern, then it governs. (Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 394; Aviation Data, Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1534-35.) Was a contractual relationshipformed? The answer is yes. A contract is formed when there are parties capable of contracting who consent to a lawful objective and there is a sufficient cause or consideration. (Civ. Code, §1550.) From the undisputed evidence, after being hired, Plaintiff Montoya was provided a link to complete onboarding documents, which would have included the Agreement. T0 complete the onboarding documents, the new hire must log in with their usemame and password. On March 8, 2019, Montoya accessed the Transitions Portal. She acknowledged and electronically signed the Agreement at 4:13 p.m. (Gray Decl. at 11116-10, 13, Exhs. D & G-H.) Arbitration is ordered if an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists; an agreement only needs t0 be found to exist, not an evidentiary determination of its validity. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-19.) The defendant providing an executed copy of the arbitration agreement satisfies the initial burden. (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1058-60.) The burden then shifts to the plaintiffto dispute the signature. (Id. at p. 1059; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.) Yet Plaintiff does not dispute the evidence 0f her electronically signing the Agreement. She merely argues (without evidentiary support) that she has no recollection of signing the Agreement. But the lack of recalling signing the Agreement is not sufficient to dispute that she did sign it under the evidence presented herein, i.e., the only means to access the Agreement as part of the onboarding process The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating FAA coverage by declarations and other evidence. (Shepard v. Edward Mackay Enterprises, (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1101; Inc. Woolls v. Superior Court (Turner) (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 197, 213-14.) Page 2 |