FRELIX, ANTONIO vs OAKLAND MOTOR CARS INC

Sanctions - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. In view of the parties' failure to comply with the Court's prior order requiring the parties to engage in further meet and confer, and to submit a Joint Status Statement to the Court, this matter is further continued to August 18, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24.

The Court also sets an OSC re Sanctions for August 18, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 as to both counsel, due to the failure of both counsel to obey the Court's prior order.

CV-25-012491 - FRELIX, ANTONIO vs OAKLAND MOTOR CARS INC - Defendant's Petition to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Putative Class Claims, and Stay Proceedings - GRANTED.

The Court finds that Defendant has discharged its burden of demonstrating evidence of a written agreement between the parties regarding the present dispute according to the terms of the arbitration between Plaintiff and Oakland Motor Cars Co, executed by Plaintiff on December 30, 2024. Brockman v. Kaiser Found. Hosps. (2025) 114 Cal. App. 5th 569, reh'g denied Oct. 16, 2025; Gamboa, v NorthEast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158; Mendoza v. Trans Valley Transp. (2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 748.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of an executed arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Oakland Motor Cars Co. covering the present dispute.

A procedural unconscionability analysis begins with an inquiry into whether the contract is one of adhesion. Swain v. LaserAway Med. Grp., Inc. (2020), 57 Cal. App. 5th 59, as modified (Nov. 3, 2020).

However, procedural unconscionability alone does not invalidate a contract but requires courts to closely scrutinize the substantive terms to ensure they are not manifestly unfair or one-sided. OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 111, 447; Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC (2026) 120 Cal. App. 5th 91.

Furthermore, when there is no other indication of oppression or surprise, the degree of procedural unconscionability of an adhesion agreement is low, and the agreement will be enforceable unless the degree of substantive unconscionability is high. Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 771.

Notably, the degree of unfairness required for unconscionability of an arbitration agreement must be as rigorous and demanding for arbitration clauses as for any other contract clause. OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, supra.

The court finds, to the extent that the arbitration agreement was a contract of adhesion, that it exhibits a baseline, low degree of procedural unconscionability. Swain v. LaserAway Med. Grp., Inc. (2020) 57 Cal. App. 5th 59, as modified (Nov. 3, 2020).

Evidence of lack of negotiation and meaningful choice, and/or surprise, where the allegedly unconscionable provision is hidden within a prolix printed form would support a finding of procedural unconscionability. Swain v. LaserAway Med. Grp., Inc. (2020) 57 Cal. App. 5th 59, as modified (Nov. 3, 2020).

Among the court's considerations in determining whether a contract was procedurally unconscionable, in addition to the issue of adhesion, is the length of the proposed contract and the length and complexity of the challenged provision.

The court finds here that the arbitration agreement is included on the 6 th page of an 8-page Vehicle Salesperson Compensation Program, has its own subheading in bold capitals and is quite lengthy, comprising a single paragraph of about 63 lines, covering about a page and a half of writing overall, with regular sized font containing legal jargon.

However, apart from the provision that lists the types of disputes subject to arbitration, the remaining sentences of the arbitration agreement are not unduly long and are written in easy-to-understand sentences.

Additionally, Plaintiff's execution of three arbitration agreements with Defendant prior to the one at issue does not support a finding of surprise.

Overall, the court finds that the arbitration agreement at issue supports a low to moderate degree of procedural unconscionability.

The ultimate issue in every case of substantive unconscionability is whether the terms of the contract are sufficiently unfair, in view of all relevant circumstances, that a court should withhold enforcement. Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal. 5th 478.

As to substantive unconscionability, the court finds a lack of substantive unconscionability herein.

Specifically, the agreement provides for adequate discovery and does not impose unreasonable costs as a condition of access to the arbitration forum. Haydon v. Elegance at Dublin (2023) 97 Cal. App. 5th 1280.

Additionally, due to the express application of said Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1284.2 and Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate an inability to pay any potentially applicable arbitration fees or costs, the court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that said fee provision of the California Arbitration Act is substantively unconscionable.” Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc. (2003), 114 Cal. App. 4th 77, modified on denial of rehearing; Haydon v. Elegance at Dublin, (2023) 97 Cal. App. 5th 1280.

According to the parties' arbitration agreement, only individual claims may be arbitrated.

Moreover, in light of the Viking River Cruises followed by the California Supreme Court decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., it seems clear that Plaintiff's individual Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims may be compelled to arbitration under the terms of the parties' arbitration agreement and in line with California's policy of permitting individual PAGA claims to be severed and compelled to arbitration. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906, reh'g denied, 143 S. Ct. 6; Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104.

Furthermore, as held by Adolph v Uber Technologies, an aggrieved employee retains standing to pursue a representative PAGA action even after arbitrating his individual claims. Adolph v Uber Techs Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5 th 1104.

Plaintiff's contentions as to the existence of a confidentiality provision herein are without merit.

Civil Code Sec. 47 (b) is also known as the official proceeding privilege and it applies to any communication: (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action. Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 256.

This is distinguishable from Plaintiff's contentions as to confidentiality which are inapplicable here.

Plaintiff's claims as to substantive unconscionability based on the arbitration of harassment claims which would include sexual harassment claims covered by the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA 9 USC section 401 and 402), which contains a prohibition on pre-dispute arbitration agreements for sexual harassment claims, are without merit as the statute gives the party alleging sexual harassment the option to elect to proceed with their claims per the pre-dispute agreement in arbitration or not. 9 U.S.C.A. Sec. 402

The Court also finds that Plaintiff's Unfair Competition Law claims, causes of action 10 and 11 in the First Amended Complaint, do not seek injunctive relief but only declarative relief.

Injunctive relief is sought as to the PAGA claim which, as above noted, is not prohibited from being pursued in a representative action in court.

The claimed injunctive relief would therefore still be available to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's' argument in this regard is therefore without merit.

An entity seeking to compel arbitration must generally establish it was a party to an arbitration agreement. Jarboe v. Hanlees Auto Grp., (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 539.

Because arbitration is a matter of contract, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement generally cannot invoke it. Ballesteros v. Ford Motor Co. (2025) 109 Cal. App. 5th 1196, review dismissed, cause remanded.

The arbitration agreement here was executed by Plaintiff and Defendant Oakland Motor Cars Inc.'s General Manager and President.

None of the other Defendants were a party to or executed the arbitration agreement.

However, the agency exception to the general rule that only a party to an arbitration agreement may enforce it provides that a defendant may enforce the arbitration agreement, when a plaintiff alleges a defendant acted as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement. Najarro v. Superior Ct. (2021) 70 Cal. App. 5th 871, as modified (Oct. 22, 2021).

The First Amended Complaint alleges that all the Defendants are agents, alter egos or employees of each other.

To that extent, the agency exception would be applicable here and permits the non-signatory Defendants to enforce the arbitration agreement against Plaintiff herein.

The doctrine of equitable estoppel seeks to hold a non-signatory liable pursuant to duties imposed by the agreement, which contains an arbitration provision, but, on the other hand, deny arbitration's applicability because the defendant is a non-signatory. Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 486, disapproved of by Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2025)17 Cal. 5th 1122; Ballesteros v. Ford Motor Co. (2025) 109 Cal. App. 5th 1196, review dismissed, cause remanded.

However, the application of this doctrine requires that the causes of action against the non-signatory are intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.

The court finds that the causes of action against the non-signatory Defendants arise from the same facts (Defendants' alleged Labor Code violations) and are inherently inseparable from the arbitrable claims against the signatory defendant.

Equitable Estoppel is therefore applicable hereto to make Plaintiff's claims against the non-signatory Defendants subject to arbitration.

In the absence of any substantively unconscionable provisions here, the Court finds that the arbitration agreement is enforceable and no severance is required. Civil Code Sec. 1670.5; Ramirez v Charter Communications, supra; 9 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.2

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is hereby granted.

Plaintiff's individual claims are hereby compelled to arbitration, Plaintiff's putative class claims are dismissed, and this matter is stayed pending the conclusion of said arbitration. 9 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3; Civ Proc. Code Sec. 1281.4; Adolph v Uber Techs Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5 th 1104.

Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order by July 24, 2026, conforming to this ruling.

CV-25-008440 - VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs MORALES, SYLVIA - Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - GRANTED, unopposed.

The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is whether, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 438(c)(1)(A); Apple Annie, LLC v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co. (2022) 82 Cal. App. 5th 919; Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal. 5th 734, 758-759.

Based on the pleadings filed herein, Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant's Answer, the Moving Papers with supporting declaration, and Defendant's failure to oppose this motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. Civil Procedure Code Sec. 438 (c)(1)(A).

Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the pleadings is hereby granted for the sum of $2, 997.60.

The referenced Civil Code Sec.Sec. 2983.4 and 1717 do not support the requested costs.

Claimed costs of $397.60 are therefore denied.

Defendant shall submit a Proposed Order no later than July 23, 2026, that conforms to the Court's ruling.

CV-26-001460 - SNYDER, GLORIA vs RAMOS, COREY - Defendant's Demurrer - MOOT.

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was not filed and served on or before the date Plaintiff's Opposition to the demurrer was due: i.e. July 2, 2026.

Plaintiff's Counsel's declaration attests to service of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on Defendant's Counsel prior to the date said First Amended Complaint was due and to a failure to file said Frist Amended Complaint with the Court prior to said deadline. Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 472 (a).

To the extent that Plaintiff timely served Defendant's Counsel with said First Amended Complaint but mistakenly failed to timely serve same with the court, and that Defendant does not oppose the untimely filing with the Court, the Court considers Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint properly filed and finds Defendant's demurrer moot.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***