Ornelas v. Central Valley Meat Co., Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MARIA PILAR ORNELAS, individually CASE NO. 1:20-CV-1017 AWI SKO and on behalf of all others similarly 7 situated, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 8 Plaintiff TO COMPEL 9 v. (Doc. No. 14) 10 CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT CO, INC., 11 Defendants 12 13 14 This is a labor related dispute between Maria Ornelas (“Ornelas”) and her employer 15 Central Valley Meat Co., Inc. (“CVM”). Ornelas brings individual claims and class claims against 16 CVM, including both state and federal law claims, based on CVM’s labor practices with respect to 17 the Covid 19 outbreak. Currently before the Court is CVM”s motion to compel arbitration. 18 Parties’ Arguments 19 CVM argues that Ornelas, and all of its employees, signed a document entitled “Mutual 20 Agreement to Arbitrate Claims.” In relevant part, the arbitration agreement broadly covers all 21 disputes between CVM and its employees, assigns to the arbitrator the responsibility of 22 determining all gateway issues (including the arbitrability of any issue), and waives both parties’ 23 right to arbitrate class claims and prevents an employee from representing a class or participating 24 as a class member in a class action. See Lacy Dec. Ex. A. CVM argues that the Court should 25 compel arbitration in light of the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims and dismiss this case. 26 Ornelas argues that she disagrees with the state of the current law and contends that forced 27 arbitration is an oppressive mechanism that employers use to silence their employees. 28 Nevertheless, with her objections to the current state of the law noted, Ornelas “does not oppose 1 [CVM’s] request to compel arbitration to allow for an arbitrator to decide all gateway issues, 2 including without limitation, the validity, enforceability, and/or scope of the alleged arbitration 3 agreement.” Doc. No. 16 at 2:24-28. Ornelas requests that the Court stay this action pursuant to 4 Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Ornelas emphasizes that she is not waiving any rights or 5 objections that she may have and that some claims are not subject to the Mutual Agreement to 6 Arbitrate Claims. 7 In reply, CVM states that staying the matter is acceptable. CVM requests that the Court 8 hold that the parties delegated gateway issues for the arbitrator, grant the motion to compel, and 9 stay this case. 10 Discussion 11 The Federal Arbitration Act states that any agreement within its scope “shall be valid, 12 irrevocable, and enforceable,” and permits a party “aggrieved by the alleged . . . refusal to 13 arbitrate” to petition any federal district court for an order compelling arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 4; 14 Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostics Sys., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). A district court’s 15 role is “limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) 16 whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” Revitch v. DIRECTV, LLC, 977 F.3d 17 713, 716 (9th Cir. 2020); Chiron, 207 F.3d at 1130. If the answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ the 18 district court must enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms; there is no place 19 for discretion by the district court. Revitch, 977 F.3d at 716. Thus, “courts should order 20 arbitration of a dispute only where the court is satisfied that neither the formation of the parties’ 21 arbitration agreement nor (absent a valid provision specifically committing such disputes to an 22 arbitrator) its enforceability or applicability to the dispute is in issue.” Granite Rock Co. v. 23 International Bhd. Of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 299 (2010); Revitch, 977 F.3d at 716. 24 Here, there are no material disputes. All agree that Ornelas has signed an arbitration 25 agreement, and Ornelas does not challenge the representation that all CVM employees signed the 26 same arbitration agreement. Further, all agree that the arbitrator will address any “gateway issues” 27 that may exist or be raised. While Ornelas disagrees with the state of the law, she does not argue 28 that CVM’s motion is contrary to the existing law or that arbitration is not warranted under the 1 existing law. Therefore, the Court can only conclude that the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate 2 | Claims assigns the arbitrator the task of addressing all “gateway issues” and that ordering 3 | arbitration is appropriate. Because “gateway issues” may be raised in the arbitration process, and 4 | given Ornelas’s position that not all of her claims are subject to arbitration, the Court will stay this 5 | matter, rather than dismissing it outright, pending completion of the arbitration. 6 7 ORDER 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 91/1. Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED; 10 The parties are to proceed forthwith to arbitration consistent with the Mutual Agreement to 11 Arbitrate Claims; 12 }3. This case is STAYED until completion of the arbitration; 13 |/4. The parties shall provide joint status updates to the Court every three (3) months and shall 14 immediately inform the Court upon completion of arbitration; and 15 The failure to provide timely reports and notifications as directed by this order may be 16 grounds for the imposition of sanctions. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ November 12, 2020 —= Z : Cb it — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28