Kaiser Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action; Kaiser Defendants' Motion to Seal Confidential Declaration of Vladimir Bien-Aime in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration
Cyril Lawrence Inc. from Representing Respondent, and for Related Relief - DENIED as MOOT.
A substitution of attorney form having been filed on June 8, 2026, indicating that Attorney Lawrence and his firm no longer represent the Respondent (but rather, she is currently representing herself), the motion to disqualify Attorney Lawrence and his firm is DENIED as MOOT.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-25-002532 - K, E vs TOM, KATHY, DO - a) Kaiser Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action - DENIED; b) Kaiser Defendants' Motion to Seal Confidential Declaration of Vladimir Bien-Aime in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration - GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) Based on review of the papers and evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement herein. In this context, the party seeking to compel arbitration must still demonstrate the employee member's assent to the arbitration provisions. (Brockman v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 569.) Here, Defendants are unable to produce evidence of the decedent's participation in the health plan enrollment procedures which sufficiently demonstrates that she was aware of and assented to the subject arbitration provisions at any time relevant to the analysis herein.
In view of the Court's conclusion in this regard, the Court finds it unnecessary to rule on the application of Health & Saf. Code Sec. 1363.1 and the federal preemption issues raised by the defense herein. Lastly, Defendants' counsel are cautioned that citation to Superior Court cases is generally not permitted. (See TBG Ins. Service Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 447 fn. 2; California Rule of Court 8.1115.) Defendants' attempt to cite such rulings in order to persuade the Court herein is facially improper.
The Court has a duty of independence which prevents reliance on unpublished cases. (Judicial Canon 1.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
b) The Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated that the subject declaration of Mr. Bien-Aime, and specifically Exhibits H and I thereto, contains Plaintiff's private and confidential health information that arguably is unrelated to the issues to be determined in the case. As such, the Court finds that the subject materials implicate Plaintiff's overriding privacy interests in her personal information and that a substantial probability exists that such interests will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed with regard to such materials.
In addition, the scope of the information to be shielded from disclosure is sufficiently narrow, specifically concerning very minimal portions of the subject exhibits. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 2.550.) The Court further notes that Defendants' reply brief seeks an order sealing additional materials submitted in connection with said reply; the Court declines to consider this request, which has not been made with proper notice at this juncture.
CV-25-008224 - SALAS, LADONNA S vs MODESTO MMP VI INC - Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, Alternatively Stay Proceedings; Alternatively Request for Statement of Decision - GRANTED.
Based on review of the papers and evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds that Defendants, as the moving parties, have demonstrated the existence of an arbitration agreement covering the claims asserted herein, and that Plaintiff has refused to submit to arbitration as agreed. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1281.2.) In addition, the Court finds that the agreement is subject to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, due to Defendant's evidence demonstrating that the subject agreement involves interstate commerce. (9 U.S.C.
Sec. 2.) The Court also recognizes that the agreement herein expressly elects the application of California procedural law and rules regarding arbitration in this instance; however, the Court finds that the agreement does not unambiguously express a specific intent to apply the provisions of Labor Code Sec. 229 to the parties' dispute herein, and that section is preempted by the FAA. (See, e.g. Nixon v. AmeriHome Mortgage Co., LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 934, 948-949.) Regarding Plaintiff's assertion of unconscionability, the Court finds only a slight degree of procedural unconscionability in connection with the presentation of the agreement by the employer.
In addition, the Court finds only one example of substantive unconscionability in the agreement, i.e., the fee-shifting provision relative to the instant motion to compel arbitration. (See, e.g. Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5 th 478, 507.) In that regard, the Court finds that the offending provision should be severed from the agreement