Conservatorship of Giselle Athziry Munoz

PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Conservatorship of Giselle Athziry Munoz 23PR000051

REVIEW HEARING

APPEARANCE REQUIRED

CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Adrian Ortiz v. Harvest Inn Team, LLC 25CV000565

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

Defendant Harvest Inn Team, LLC (Harvest Inn) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 and the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 16), for an order compelling Plaintiff Adrian Ortiz to submit his individual, non-PAGA claims to arbitration pursuant to a written arbitration agreement. Harvest Inn further moves for an order enforcing the agreement’s class and collective action waivers by dismissal of class and collective claims. Finally, Harvest Inn seeks a stay of the instant litigation pending resolution of the arbitration.

A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

The Court rules on Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections as follows.

Objection No. 1: (Labelled Objection No.

4. See Objections at 2:14-25.) SUSTAINED as to “Mr. Ortiz’s first language is Spanish” on grounds of lack of personal knowledge and lack of foundation. OVERRULED in all other respects.

Objection Nos. 2-4: OVERRULED.

Objection No. 5: (Labelled Objection No.

4. See Objections at 4:3-9.) SUSTAINED as to “and determined that Plaintiff's individual non PAGA claims are subject to arbitration.” OVERRULED in all other respects.

Objection No. 6: (Labelled Objection No.

5. See Objections at 4:3-9.) OVERRULED. The only portion of the subject matter that tends towards hearsay is the statement “During the telephone conference, agreed [sic] with this process.” (See Objections at 4:19-20; see also Declaration of Shane Singh at 2:28.) However, as the sentence contains no subject, it is not clearly hearsay. It is, however, of no evidentiary value for the same reason.