Motion-Secondary: **PAGA**Herrera -v- Rush Truck Centers of California, Inc. et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                gmaw                           \u

                                                                                                       F    l   L E
                                                                                                   s                 COUR
     BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.                                                            COUNTVBEIEQPJBE NTD No
                                                                                         SAN BERNARDINOE DINSTRICT
     Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq., CA Bar No. 285256
     mehrdad@b0kh0urlaw.c0m                                                                            SEP      l   9 2022
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450                                                                ’
                                                                                              .9
                                                                                                            5       f»,
     Los Angeles, California 90067                                                 BY     (:mgfifgm;
     Tel: (310) 975-1493; Fax: (310) 675—0861                                           CUAUH'IEMUCNJ                      ,   EPUTY

     FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
     Joshua S. Falakassa, CA Bar No. 295045
     josh@falakassalaw. com
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
     Los Angeles, California 90067
     Tel: (818) 456-6168; Fax: (888)          505-0868


     Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees
                                                                                                                                        Gamid

10
                           SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
                                    FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
12
     DANNIA HERRERA,                0n behalf of herself and         CASE NO.: CIVSB2205617
13   all   others similarly situated,
                                                                     Assigned t0 the Hon. David Cohn
14                     Plaintiff,

               V.                                                    PLAINTIFF DANNIA HERRERA’S
15                                                                   OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
16
     RUSH TRUCK CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA,                               MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
     INC., a Delaware Corporation; RUSH                              AND DISMISS OR STAY PROCEEDINGS
17   ADMINISTRATIVE                 SERVICES,      INC.,     a
     Delaware       Corporation;        and    DOES      1—50,       Hearing Information:
18    inclusive.
                                                                     DATE:   October     5,   2022
19
                       Defendants.                                   TIME: 10:00     a.m.

20
                                                                     Complaint     Filed:   March           11,     2022
21                                                                   Trial Date:   None     set


22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                                                 i



       PLAINTIFF DANNIA HERRERA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO                                                          COMPEL
                     ARBITRATION AND DISMISS OR STAY PROCEEDINGS
                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

     I.      INTRODUCTION                                                                             1


     II.     STATEMENT OF FACTS                                                                       2


     III.    ARGUMENT                                                                                 2


     A.      Motion   to   Compel Arbitration   is   a Motion t0 Enforce the Arbitration Agreement by Its
     Express Terms                                                                                    2


     B.      TheTrial Court Must Deny Defendants’ Motion Because the Agreement Excludes
     Claims That Were “Not Subject to Arbitration” at the Time the Agreement was Entered ..... 4

     C.      The Trial Court Must Deny Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration                  Because
     Plaintiff Retains Standing to Pursue Her Representative Claims.                                  5


     D.       Plaintiff Has Standing to Assert the Representative      Claims                         6
10
     E.     Alternatively, This Court Should Postpone Ruling on the Enforceability of the
11   Agreement until the California Supreme Court Issues Its Decision in Adolph v. Uber
     Technologies, Inc.                                                               10
12
     IV.      CONCLUSION                                                                              11
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                                           ii


          PLAINTIFF DANNIA HERRERA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO                      COMPEL
                        ARBITRATION AND DISMISS OR STAY PROCEEDINGS