On September 24, 2021 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Singh, Parminder,
and
Does 1 To 25, Inclusive,
Paramount Professionals, Inc.,
Siddiq, Asif,
Tayag, Eleazar,
Tayag, Ginal,
Tayag, Ginalyn,
for Complex Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
V \y
F L E D
l
SUPERIOR coum 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN EERHARDINO
BRAD A. MOKRI, ESQ, SBN 208213 SAN BERNARCJD DzsmaCT
LAW OFFICES OF MOKRI & ASSOCIATES
19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 600 SEP 2 1 2023
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone No.: (7 1 4) 61 9-9395
Facsxmile No.: (888) 342—1 406
BY fl
/
J A ALES. UTY
Attorney for Defendant
PARAMOUNT PROFESSIONALS, INC., dba IMPERIAL HOME HEALTH,
ASIF SIDDIQ, ELZAR TAYAG, and GINALYN TAYAG
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PARMINDBR SINGH; Case No: CIVSBZIZ7233
[Assigned for All Purposes to the
Hon. David Cohn/ Dept. S-26[
Plaintifi‘,
PARAMOUNT PROFESSIONALS, INC’S
vs. REPLY T0 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION
T0 MOTION TO COMPEL
WVVWWWVVVVWVVVW
ARBITRATION
PARAMOUNT PROFESSIONALS, INC. dba
IMPERIAL HOME HEALTH; ASIF SIDDIQ; Hearing Information:
F A x{
—'
ELEAZAR TAYAG; GINALYN TAYAG; Date: September 29, 2023
and DOES to 25, inclusive,
|
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: S-26
Defendants. Complaintfiled: September 24, 2021
J Trial: TBD
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. DEFENDANTS HAVE ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF A BINDING
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
Plaintifi makes the curious and meritless argument in his opposition that Defendants are
unable to eiablish the existence ofa binding arbitration agreement. This is a cun'ous argument sinm
Defendants’ motion and wpecially the declaration in support ofthe mofion point to Exhibit A to the
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION
- 1
declamtion which is a Hue and correct copy ofthe arbitration agreement, and the same is noticed in
Defendants’ previously filed Request for Judicial Notice.
Exhibit A shows that the arbitrafion agreement was initialed and signed by the Plainfifi' and
dated. The arbitration agreement has an opt out provision allowing the employee to opt out of the
arbitmtion process within thirty (30) days of signing the ageement, which Plaintiff in this case did
not elect. As such, there is a binding arbitration amement which was executed by Plainfifi‘
Unlike in the Ruiz case cited by Plaintifiad nauseam in the opposition, the Plaintifi’s siglatum
in this case as evidenced by Exhibit A was not obtained electronically, but personally at the time the
arbitration agreement was presented to Plaintiff. Any argument to the contrary is plain wrong and n01
in keeping with the evidmce already presented to the Court by way ofDefendants’ motion.
Based on the foregoing, Defendants have established the existence of a valid and binding
arbitration agreement.
II. EVEN IF THE FAA DOES NOT APPLY. CALIFORNIA LAW SUPPORTS
ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS
Borrowing fiom Plaintifi‘s argument in the opposition, if a court‘s inquiry is limited to a
determination of (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (2) whether the arbitration
agreement covets the dispute, then the arbitration agreement in this case meets both criteria.
California favors the resolution of disputes between partia to a confiact through arbitratiom
especially in the employment context. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. , 24
Ca1.4‘h 83 (2004).
Plaintifi‘is not claiming that the terms ofthe underlying arbiuation agreement arc procedurally
or substantively unconscionable, because they are not, eSpecially since Defendants have inserted an
opt—out clause allowing the prospective employee to opt out of arbitration, and Plainfifi' in this case
did not opt out of arbitration. Furthermore, by its terms, the underlying arbitration agreement covers
all claims and disputm brought by Plaintifi'.
Based on the foregoing, Dcfcndants’ motion should be granted.
///
///
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION
- 2
Document Filed Date
September 21, 2023
Case Filing Date
September 24, 2021
Category
Complex Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
V \y F L E D l SUPERIOR coum 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN EERHARDINO BRAD A. MOKRI, ESQ, SBN 208213 SAN BERNARCJD DzsmaCT LAW OFFICES OF MOKRI & ASSOCIATES 19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 600 SEP 2 1 2023 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone No.: (7 1 4) 61 9-9395 Facsxmile No.: (888) 342—1 406 BY fl / J A ALES. UTY Attorney for Defendant PARAMOUNT PROFESSIONALS, INC., dba IMPERIAL HOME HEALTH, ASIF SIDDIQ, ELZAR TAYAG, and GINALYN TAYAG SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PARMINDBR SINGH; Case No: CIVSBZIZ7233 [Assigned for All Purposes to the Hon. David Cohn/ Dept. S-26[ Plaintifi‘, PARAMOUNT PROFESSIONALS, INC’S vs. REPLY T0 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION T0 MOTION TO COMPEL WVVWWWVVVVWVVVW ARBITRATION PARAMOUNT PROFESSIONALS, INC. dba IMPERIAL HOME HEALTH; ASIF SIDDIQ; Hearing Information: F A x{ —' ELEAZAR TAYAG; GINALYN TAYAG; Date: September 29, 2023 and DOES to 25, inclusive, | Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: S-26 Defendants. Complaintfiled: September 24, 2021 J Trial: TBD MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. DEFENDANTS HAVE ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT Plaintifi makes the curious and meritless argument in his opposition that Defendants are unable to eiablish the existence ofa binding arbitration agreement. This is a cun'ous argument sinm Defendants’ motion and wpecially the declaration in support ofthe mofion point to Exhibit A to the REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION - 1 declamtion which is a Hue and correct copy ofthe arbitration agreement, and the same is noticed in Defendants’ previously filed Request for Judicial Notice. Exhibit A shows that the arbitrafion agreement was initialed and signed by the Plainfifi' and dated. The arbitration agreement has an opt out provision allowing the employee to opt out of the arbitmtion process within thirty (30) days of signing the ageement, which Plaintiff in this case did not elect. As such, there is a binding arbitration amement which was executed by Plainfifi‘ Unlike in the Ruiz case cited by Plaintifiad nauseam in the opposition, the Plaintifi’s siglatum in this case as evidenced by Exhibit A was not obtained electronically, but personally at the time the arbitration agreement was presented to Plaintiff. Any argument to the contrary is plain wrong and n01 in keeping with the evidmce already presented to the Court by way ofDefendants’ motion. Based on the foregoing, Defendants have established the existence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement. II. EVEN IF THE FAA DOES NOT APPLY. CALIFORNIA LAW SUPPORTS ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS Borrowing fiom Plaintifi‘s argument in the opposition, if a court‘s inquiry is limited to a determination of (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (2) whether the arbitration agreement covets the dispute, then the arbitration agreement in this case meets both criteria. California favors the resolution of disputes between partia to a confiact through arbitratiom especially in the employment context. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. , 24 Ca1.4‘h 83 (2004). Plaintifi‘is not claiming that the terms ofthe underlying arbiuation agreement arc procedurally or substantively unconscionable, because they are not, eSpecially since Defendants have inserted an opt—out clause allowing the prospective employee to opt out of arbitration, and Plainfifi' in this case did not opt out of arbitration. Furthermore, by its terms, the underlying arbitration agreement covers all claims and disputm brought by Plaintifi'. Based on the foregoing, Dcfcndants’ motion should be granted. /// /// REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION T0 COMPEL ARBITRATION - 2