Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2021 at 04:12:39 (UTC).

KARINA LOPEZ VS GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/11/2020 KARINA LOPEZ filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L L C , A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GREGORY KEOSIAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7607

  • Filing Date:

    12/11/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GREGORY KEOSIAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LOPEZ KARINA

Defendants

GARFIELD BEACH CVS L.L.C. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANY

GIACOMELLI JOHN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

CHAMI POUYA B.

Defendant Attorney

JONES LEILANI

Other Attorneys

CHAMI POUYA

 

Court Documents

Request for Refund / Order

4/22/2021: Request for Refund / Order

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5/3/2021: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS ACTION

5/5/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS ACTION

Declaration - DECLARATION OF KARINA LOPEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS ACTION

5/5/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF KARINA LOPEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS ACTION

Case Management Statement

5/7/2021: Case Management Statement

Reply - REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

5/13/2021: Reply - REPLY ISO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RULING RE DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

5/20/2021: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING RULING RE DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Proof of Personal Service

2/17/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Answer

3/8/2021: Answer

Motion to Compel Arbitration

3/9/2021: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JEFFREY DUNHILL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

3/9/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JEFFREY DUNHILL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MELANIE K. LUKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

3/9/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MELANIE K. LUKER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Declaration - DECLARATION OF LEILANI E. JONES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

3/9/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF LEILANI E. JONES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

3/23/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice of Case Management Conference

12/29/2020: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

12/11/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/11/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

12/11/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/19/2021
  • Hearing11/19/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration; Case Management Conf...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (Ruling Re Defendant Universal Protection Service, LP's Motion to Compel Arbitration); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketReply (ISO Motion to Compel Arbitration); Filed by Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., a California limited liablity company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., a California limited liablity company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Karina Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
9 More Docket Entries
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketMotion to Compel Arbitration; Filed by Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., a California limited liablity company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (of Melanie K. Luker in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration); Filed by Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., a California limited liablity company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., a California limited liablity company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Karina Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Karina Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Karina Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Karina Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV47607    Hearing Date: May 20, 2021    Dept: 61

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

I. MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement to arbitrate a controversy, a court must order the petitioner and respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines the arbitration agreement exists, unless (1) the petitioner has waived its right to arbitrate; (2) grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement; or (3) “[a] party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

“[T]he party moving to compel arbitration bears the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. The role of the trial court is to sit as a trier of fact, weighing any affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, together with oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a determination on the issue of arbitrability.” (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.)

CVS presents an arbitration agreement that Plaintiff executed on April 28, 2018, as part of her onboarding process. (Dunhill Decl. Exh. 2.) The agreement requires arbitration of covered disputes, which “are any and all claims, disputes or controversies that CVS may have, now or in the future, against You or that You may have, now or in the future, against CVS or one of its employees or agents, arising out of or related to Your employment with CVS or the termination of Your employment.” (Ibid.)

CVS has satisfied its initial burden to show the existence of an applicable arbitration agreement. But Plaintiff argues that the agreement is unconscionable.“Unconscionability requires a showing of both procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability.” (Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 795.) Arbitration contracts presented to employees on a take-it-or-leave-it basis are at least minimally procedurally unconscionable. (See Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 113.) Plaintiff argues that the agreement is procedurally unconscionable because it is a form contract of adhesion, because it lacks mutuality, and because it requires her to pay arbitrator’s fees. (Opposition at pp. 4–14.)

This argument fails because the agreement is not substantively unconscionable. Contra Plaintiff’s argument, the agreement applies both to employee and employer claims, and does not lack mutuality. The language that Plaintiff relies on for this point states only that the arbitration agreement does not prevent either party from bringing “a motion in court for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief in connection with an arbitrable controversy.” (Dunhill Decl. Exh. A.) But this provision does not give any party more rights than they are entitled to under existing law; parties to arbitration generally may petition a court for preliminary injunctive relief related to the arbitration, and the language cited in the agreement merely clarifies that neither party waives these procedures. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.8, subd. (b).) While injunctive relief clauses may sometimes lack mutuality, this is generally true only where the arbitration agreement grants the employer greater rights to injunctive relief than they enjoy under ordinary law. (See Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.Ap.4th 227, 250 [it was unconscionable for a provision to allow an employer “to seek any type of injunctive relief in court, including a permanent injunction”].) That is not the case here.

Nor does the agreement require Plaintiff to bear the costs of arbitration. Plaintiff acknowledges that the agreement only requires her to pay the initial arbitration fee to the extent she would have to pay a similar fee in court, but she argues that this provision is unconscionable because the agreement does not inform her of the potential for court fee waivers. (Opposition at pp. 13–14.) But a reasonable reading of the agreement includes waivers in its calculation. It states: “[I]f Your claim initiation fee exceeds what a court in the jurisdiction would have charged You for filing a lawsuit based on Your claims, then You will be responsible only for the amount that the court would have charged, and CVS will pay the remaining amount to the AAA.” (Dunhill Decl. Exh. A.) This language does not require Plaintiff to pay the equivalent of an initial filing fee in a court in the same jurisdiction, but only “what a court in the jurisdiction would have charged You for filing a lawsuit.” The metric is what someone in the plaintiff’s shoes would have had to pay had they gone to court, including allowance for financial circumstances and waivers. The agreement does not require employees to pay a flat fee regardless of financial hardship.

The agreement is not unconscionable, and the motion is therefore GRANTED.

Defendant to provide notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where GARFIELD BEACH CVS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHAMI POUYA