JACKSON vs HARBOR FREIGHT

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel arbitration against Plaintiff in pro per Stephen Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Plaintiff and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiff prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019531: JACKSON vs HARBOR FREIGHT 05/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action in Department 8C

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is unopposed and granted.

Plaintiff filed this action on August 18, 2025. The Complaint contains three unlabeled causes of action. Although the Complaint lists the defendant as “Harbor Freight Legal Dept. 26541 Agoura Rd Calabasas, CA 91302,” the allegations indicate that Plaintiff’s claims arise from his employment with Defendant. Defendant’s counsel declares that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from May 2013 through February 2016.

On February 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against Defendant related to his employment. That action was compelled to arbitration before ultimately settling in May of 2018. As part of the settlement, Plaintiff agreed to release all claims he had or may have had against Defendant arising prior to the execution of the settlement. The settlement agreement included an arbitration provision that stated:

Any dispute over the validity, enforcement, scope, breach or interpretation of this Agreement and any dispute of any kind whatsoever between Jackson and Harbor Freight and/or the Harbor Freight Releasees, if any, shall be submitted and resolved in final and binding arbitration pursuant through the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) pursuant to the provisions of the AAA employment arbitration rules or successor rules then in effect, applicable to individually negotiated agreements; except, no arbitrator shall have jurisdiction to grant any remedy or relief that would have been unavailable to the parties had the matter been heard in court in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to, awards of attorney’s fees and costs. Any and all issues regarding this agreement to arbitrate shall be governed by applicable state law, both procedural and substantive, except that the standards for vacation of any award will be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

(Freidman Decl., Exh. 1, ¶ 20.)

“Under both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.” (Sparks v. Del Mar Child and Family Svcs. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517.) If the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, then it must order the case to arbitration unless grounds exist for revocation of the agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; 9 U.S.C. § 2.)

Defendant has established the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The arbitration provision in the settlement agreement quoted above applies to “any dispute of any kind whatsoever” between the parties. (Freidman Decl., Exh. 1, ¶ 20.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and thus has not shown that grounds exist for revocation of the agreement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019531: JACKSON vs HARBOR FREIGHT 05/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action in Department 8C

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

This case is STAYED pending completion of the arbitration.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order via mail and file proof of service by no later than May 26, 2026.