Cortez v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc., No. 4:2022cv07332 - Document 22 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS 12 MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. Status Report due by 10/14/2023. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/16/2023. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2023)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cortez v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc. Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALBERTO C. CORTEZ, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CAMBRIDGE REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., 11 Case No. 22-cv-07332-HSG ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Re: Dkt. No. 12 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 Plaintiff Alberto Cortez (“Cortez” or “Plaintiff”) brought this putative class action against 13 14 Defendant Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc. (“Cambridge” or “Defendant”), alleging ten 15 causes of action related to Cortez’s employment with Cambridge, including both individual and 16 class claims. Dkt. No. 12-2 at 1-2 (“Sachs Decl.”). Cambridge moves to compel Cortez to 17 arbitrate his claims as required by an arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”). See Dkt. No. 12 18 (“Mot.”). Cortez opposes. See Dkt. No. 13 (“Opp.”) at 1. The Court GRANTS Cambridge’s 19 motion to compel arbitration.1 20 I. BACKGROUND On April 1, 2019, Cambridge, a property management service business, hired Cortez. Dkt. 21 22 No. 12-1 at 2 (“Cooper Decl.”). On the same day, Plaintiff signed the Agreement, in which he 23 agreed to submit “any and all previously unasserted claims, disputes, lawsuits or controversies 24 arising out of or relating to his or her application or candidacy for employment, his or her 25 employment, or the cessation of his or her employment to binding arbitration before a neutral and 26 unbiased arbitrator.” Cooper Decl. Ex. 1. Under the Agreement, “the term ‘any and all previously 27 28 1 The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Dockets.Justia.com 1 unasserted claims, disputes, lawsuits or controversies’ includes, but is no limited to, any and all 2 claims, actions, or executive orders, or under the common law of any jurisdiction.” Id. Cortez’s 3 last date of employment with Cambridge was October 18, 2021. Cooper Decl. at 2. On October 7, 2022, Cortez originally brought this Complaint against Defendant in Butte United States District Court Northern District of California 4 5 County Superior Court alleging ten causes of action related to Cortez’s employment with 6 Cambridge: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and for All Hours Worked; (2) Failure to Pay 7 Wages and Overtime; (3) Meal Period Liability; (4) Rest Break Liability; (5) Violation of Labor 8 Code § 226(a); (6) Violation of Labor Code § 221; (7) Violation of Labor Code § 204; (8) 9 Violation of Labor Code § 203; (9) Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and (10) 10 Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200. Sachs Decl. Ex. 2. On November 18, 2022, 11 Cambridge removed the case under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Sachs Decl. at 2. 12 13 II. LEGAL STANDARDS The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., establishes that a written 14 arbitration agreement is “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at 15 law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; see also Moses H. Cone Mem'l 16 Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983) (noting federal policy favoring arbitration). 17 The FAA allows that a party “aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to 18 arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court ... 19 for an order directing that ... arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 20 U.S.C. § 4. 21 When a party moves to compel arbitration, the court must determine (1) “whether a valid 22 arbitration agreement exists” and (2) “whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at 23 issue.” Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Servs., Inc., 363 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). The 24 agreement may also delegate gateway issues to an arbitrator, in which case the court's role is 25 limited to determining whether there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to 26 arbitrate arbitrability. See Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015). In either 27 instance, “before referring a dispute to an arbitrator, the court determines whether a valid 28 arbitration agreement exists.” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 2 1 530 (2019) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 2). When the parties contest whether an agreement was formed, the court applies “general United States District Court Northern District of California 2 3 state-law principles of contract interpretation,” without a presumption in favor of 4 arbitrability. Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno, 747 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal 5 quotation omitted). The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving by a 6 preponderance of the evidence that there was an agreement to arbitrate. Norcia v. Samsung 7 Telecomms. Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2017). Conversely, the party opposing 8 arbitration is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences. Three Valleys Mun. 9 Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore, a court may 10 find that an agreement to arbitrate exists as a matter of law “[o]nly when there is no genuine issue 11 of fact concerning the formation of the agreement.” Id. (internal quotation omitted); see 12 also Alarcon v. Vital Recovery Servs., Inc., 706 F. App'x 394, 394 (9th Cir. 2017) (same). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 Cambridge moves to compel Cortez to arbitrate his individual claims based on the 15 Agreement, and to dismiss Cortez’s class claims. Mot. at 3. The Court agrees that the Agreement 16 is enforceable, and that the class claims must be dismissed. 17 A. A Valid Agreement to Arbitrate Exists 18 “Where a party contests the formation of the parties’ arbitration agreement the court must 19 resolve the disagreement.” Sanders v. Telacu Constr. Mgmt., No. CV 19-766-DMG (JCX), 2019 20 WL 7906427, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2019) (citing Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 21 561 U.S. 287, 299-300 (2010) (cleaned up)). The Court first considers whether the Agreement has 22 been adequately authenticated, then addresses whether Defendant has met its burden of showing 23 that the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate. 24 25 i. The Arbitration Agreement Is Properly Authenticated An item of evidence may be considered under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), which 26 requires a proper foundation be laid to authenticate the item by “evidence sufficient to support a 27 finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Such a foundation 28 may be laid through the testimony of a witness with knowledge that the “item is what it is claimed 3 1 to be.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). “A party need only make a prima facie showing of authenticity 2 so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification.” Am. Fed'n of 3 Musicians of United States & Canada v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 903 F.3d 968, 976 (9th Cir. 4 2018) (citation and quotations omitted).2 5 The Court finds that the declaration of Angela Cooper adequately authenticates the 6 Agreement. Ms. Cooper, the Human Resources Consultant for Cambridge Real Estate, attests to 7 having personal knowledge of the date of Cortez’s hiring and affirms that Plaintiff signed the 8 Agreement on April 1, 2019. Cooper Decl. at 1-2, 4. Significantly, Cortez does not challenge the 9 authenticity of his own handwritten signature on the Agreement. See generally Opp. at 3-5. 10 ii. 11 Defendant Has Met Its Burden of Showing that the Parties Formed an Enforceable Arbitration Agreement United States District Court Northern District of California Plaintiff does not dispute that California law governs the contract formation determination 12 here. The Ninth Circuit has held that under California law, “the party seeking to compel 13 arbitration[] has the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a 14 preponderance of the evidence.” Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 771 F.3d 559, 565 (9th Cir. 15 2014). The party moving to compel arbitration may meet its initial burden of proving that an 16 17 agreement exists “by attaching to the petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the respondent's signature.” Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC, 64 Cal. App. 5th 541, 544 18 (2021), as modified (May 21, 2021); see also Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp., 88 Cal. App. 4th 19 20 21 215, 219 (2001) (holding that to introduce an arbitration agreement, the “[p]etitioner need only allege the existence of an agreement and support the allegation” with “a copy or recitation of its terms”). “[A] petitioner is not required to authenticate an opposing party’s signature on an 22 arbitration agreement as a preliminary matter in moving for arbitration or in the event the 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff’s reliance on cases applying California authentication rules is inapposite because “federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.” See Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938)). Although there are exceptions to this general rule, because the question of authentication is not “substantive law in the guise of an evidentiary rule,” none apply here. See Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 563 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended (Apr. 27, 2010); see also Prostek v. Lincare Inc., No. 1:22-CV-1530 AWI BAM, 2023 WL 2588098, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2023) (holding that “[b]ecause Rule 901(a) controls, neither Cal. Evid. Code § 403 nor [state court precedent relying on the Cal. Evid. Code] authentication analysis applies”). 4 2 1 authenticity of the signature is not challenged.” Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc., 232 Cal. 2 App. 4th 843, 846 (2014); see also Sanders, No. CV 19-766-DMG (JCX), 2019 WL 7906427, at 3 *3 (existence of agreement to arbitrate shown where plaintiff “[did] not dispute that the signature 4 appearing on the agreement bearing her name is her signature” and “only state[d] that she does not 5 recall signing the agreement”); Joseph E. Di Loreto, Inc. v. O’Neill, 1 Cal. App. 4th 149, 160 6 (1991) (same where plaintiff “never unequivocally denied” that the signature on the agreement 7 was his). 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Cortez argues, citing In re Uber Text Messaging, that Ms. Cooper’s statement is substantively deficient and “does not establish [that Defendant signed the Agreement] or that the 10 [Agreement] is what Defendant purports it to be.” Opp. at 5. In that case, the Court held that 11 there was a genuine dispute of fact as to whether an arbitration agreement was formed because of 12 a dearth of evidence authenticating the agreement. In re Uber Text Messaging, No. 18-CV-02931- 13 HSG, 2019 WL 2509337, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2019). The defendants in In re Uber Text 14 Messaging never proffered a signed contract or a party with personal knowledge, relying instead 15 on “[s]nippets from a database, reproduced without any context, explanation, or supporting 16 testimony.” Id. at 6. Here, by contrast, the signed agreement is attached to the declaration of Ms. 17 Cooper, and Plaintiff does not actually deny that the handwritten signature is his. 18 The Court finds that a valid arbitration covering the claims in this lawsuit exists, and 19 accordingly grants Cambridge’s motion to compel arbitration with respect to the individual claims. 20 See Prostek, No. 1:22-CV-1530 AWI BAM, 2023 WL 2588098, at *8 (finding that defendant 21 adequately showed the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement when, among other 22 things, plaintiff “fail[ed] to deny the authenticity of her handwritten signature on the Arbitration 23 Agreement”). 24 B. 25 Plaintiff’s Class Claims Are Barred From Forced Arbitration The Supreme Court has held that class arbitration requires express consent of the parties 26 because it significantly alters the nature of the arbitration process. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. 27 AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 685 (2010). “Neither silence nor ambiguity provides a 28 sufficient basis for concluding that parties to an arbitration agreement agreed to undermine the 5 1 central benefits of arbitration itself.” Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1417 (2019). 2 “In California, an agreement is ambiguous when it is capable of two or more constructions, both 3 of which are reasonable.” Id. at 1414-1415 (citation and quotations omitted). United States District Court Northern District of California 4 Cortez argues that the clause “any and all claims, actions, or lawsuits” encompasses class 5 claims. Opp. at 6. In Lamps Plus, the Supreme Court confirmed that the following statements 6 were ambiguous with regard to class claims: “any right I may have to file a lawsuit or other civil 7 action or proceeding relating to my employment with the Company”; “any right I may have to 8 resolve employment disputes through trial by judge or jury”; and “arbitration shall be in lieu of 9 any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings relating to my employment.” Lamps Plus, 10 Inc., 139 S. Ct. at 1418. The same ambiguity is present in the Agreement here, which provides 11 that “any and all claims, actions, or lawsuits” must be submitted “to binding arbitration before a 12 neutral and unbiased arbitrator.” Cooper Decl. at 4-5. Even Plaintiff admits that the Agreement is 13 silent as to class claims. See Opp. At 6 (“[the Agreement] does not specifically reference them or 14 explicitly declare the parties agree to arbitrate class claims”). Because the language in the 15 agreement may be reasonably interpreted to extend only to individual claims or also to class 16 claims, the Court finds the clause ambiguous. See Lamps Plus, 139 S. Ct. at 1414-1415, 1418. 17 The Court accordingly finds that the putative class claims may not be arbitrated. Plaintiff’s Putative Class Claims Must Be Dismissed 18 C. 19 In light of the Court’s findings that the class claims may not be arbitrated, and that 20 Plaintiff’s individual claims are compelled to arbitration, the Court finds that it must dismiss the 21 putative class claims. A plaintiff may not pursue class claims as a representative when they are 22 required to arbitrate their own claims. See Farfan v. SSC Carmichael Operating Co. LP, No. 18- 23 CV-01472-HSG, 2019 WL 4933577, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2019) (dismissing class claims 24 because the plaintiff could not represent the class after individual claims were compelled to 25 arbitration). Accordingly, because Plaintiff cannot serve as class representative given the Court’s 26 dismissal of its individual claims, there is no class representative who can pursue the class claims, 27 and those claims are dismissed. 28 6 D. 1 Plaintiff’s Request For Remand Is Denied Cortez argues that Cambridge prematurely filed its removal motion before Cortez could 2 file a First Amended Complaint. Opp. at 1, 7. The Court disagrees: because the Federal Rules of 3 Civil Procedure require a notice of removal to be filed within thirty days after the receipt of notice 4 by the Defendant, and Defendant met this deadline here, removal was proper. 28 U.S.C.A. § 5 1446; Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff also argues that if the class claims are dismissed, the individual claims 6 should be remanded to state court, where Plaintiff has initiated a separate PAGA case. Opp. at 7-8. 7 Because the Court has granted the motion to compel arbitration with respect to the individual 8 claims, there are no individual claims to remand. 9 10 IV. CONLCUSION The Court GRANTS Cambridge’s motion to compel arbitration, and dismisses Cortez’s 11 United States District Court Northern District of California putative class claims. The remainder of the case is STAYED pending completion of arbitration. 12 The parties are directed to file a joint status report regarding the status of the arbitration 13 proceeding 120 days from the date of this order and every 120 days thereafter unless otherwise 14 ordered. The Clerk is directed to administratively close the case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 6/16/2023 18 19 20 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
