JONES vs LEGION CORPORATION

Each Party shall be entitled to discovery of essential documents and witnesses, as determined by the arbitrator. After the assignment of a case to the arbitrator, a party may conduct discovery as follows: (1) request admissions from a party; and (2) take the deposition of another party. A party may request additional discovery from the arbitrator including interrogatories, and the arbitrator will allow additional discovery only when reasonably necessary.

(Id.) Section 7 of the agreement, titled “Expenses of Arbitration,” provides that “[a]ny request for costs and attorney fees shall be filed with the arbitrator and served upon all other parties no later than seven days after receipt of the award.” (Id. § 7(a).)

Jones opposed the Motion. (Opp’n to Mot. Compel Arb., July 21, 2026.) Jones argued that the Federal Arbitration Agreement did not apply; and thus, the individual portion of his PAGA claim could not be referred to arbitration. (Id. 4:4–5:3.) Jones next argued that the arbitration agreement did not encompass the individual portion of Jones’s PAGA claim. (Id. 5:3–7:22.) Jones finally argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. (Id. 7:23–14:18.)

B. The Class Action Before this Motion was heard, the Superior Court of San Francisco County issued an order granting Legion’s motion to compel arbitration of Jones’s individual claims. (See Order Granting Legion’s Mot. Compel Arb., Jones v. Legion Corp., No. CGC25626230 (June 11, 2026).) That court reviewed the same agreement to arbitrate employment disputes at issue here and found that it was valid and that the FAA applied. (Id. 5:13–14.) The court then considered whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. (Id. 5:18–6:12.) The court found a low degree of procedural unconscionability because it was a contract of adhesion. (Id. 6:13–10:21.) The court then found that the provisions pertaining to venue and confidentiality were substantively unconscionable and severed those provisions, among other things. (Id. 10:22–19:5.)

II.

Legal Standard

A written agreement to arbitrate an existing or future controversy is valid unless grounds exist to rescind the contract. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281; see also 9 U.S.C. § 2 (A written arbitration agreement within a “contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce” is “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract . . . .”).) A court must order the parties to arbitrate the controversy if it finds that a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists unless the moving party waived the right to compel arbitration or grounds exist to rescind the agreement. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.2(a), (b).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV141902: JONES vs LEGION CORPORATION 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by LEGION CORPORATION (Defendant) CRS# 642853414432 in Department 16

III.

Discussion

At the threshold, the Court finds that the Superior Court of San Francisco County’s order has no preclusive effect on this Court as it is not a final judgment. The parties agree on this issue. Still, the order has substantial persuasive value as the two actions and two motions to compel arbitration have substantial overlap.

A. Existence of Arbitration Agreement The Court finds that the FAA’s substantive provisions and the California Arbitration Agreement’s procedural provisions apply to this arbitration agreement. (See Mot. Ex. A, at § 1; see also Nixon v. AmeriHome Mortg. Co., LLC (2021) 67 Cal. App. 5th 934, 945 (“[T]he procedural provisions of the CAA [the California Arbitration Act] apply in California courts by default. . . . . [T]he parties may ‘expressly designate that any arbitration proceeding [may] move forward under the FAA's procedural provisions rather than under state procedural law.’ Absent such an express designation, however, the FAA's procedural provisions do not apply in state court.” (quoting Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 153, 174–75).)

The Court further finds that the agreement to arbitrate employment disputes is valid and encompasses the individual component of Jones’s PAGA action. As noted above, section 1of the arbitration agreement encompasses all disputes arising from Jones’s employment with Legion. (Id.)

B. Defenses to Enforcement The Court finds that the agreement to arbitrate employment disputes is enforceable though it contains some unconscionable terms. On this issue, the Court incorporates in full the Superior Court of San Francisco County’s well-reasoned discussion finding a low degree of procedural unconscionability, severing the confidentiality provision (section 8), severing choice-of-venue provision within section 5, and providing for discovery consistent with Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 83. (See Order Granting Legion’s Mot. Compel Arb. 5:11–19:5, Jones, No. CGC2562623.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated there, the Court finds a low degree of procedural unconscionability, severs the confidentiality provision (section 8), severs choice-of-venue provision within section 5, and provides for discovery consistent with Armendariz.

C. Closing Remarks The Court strongly urges the parties to further meet and confer about consolidating the class and PAGA actions to avoid wasting arbitration and judicial resources, and needless duplication and relitigation of issues. Judge Ross urged the parties to “agree on an approach to consolidate [the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV141902: JONES vs LEGION CORPORATION 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by LEGION CORPORATION (Defendant) CRS# 642853414432 in Department 16 class action] and [the PAGA action] in San Francisco or Alameda to avoid the duplication of effort and the waste of judicial resources.” (Id. 1, n.1, Jones, No. CGC25626230.) The parties reported to Judge Ross that they failed to reach an agreement. The Court renews Judge Ross’s urging. This Motion is an excellent example of how the parties’ failure to cooperate caused needless litigation, avoidable waste of their clients’ time and money, unnecessarily consumed the public’s resources, and unduly burdened the Court’s limited resources.

IV. Orders The Motion is granted.

The Court takes judicial notice of the Superior Court of San Francisco County’s order granting Legion’s motion to compel arbitration of Jones’s claims in Jones, No. CGC25626230, dated June 11, 2026.

The individual component of Jones’s PAGA action is referred to arbitration.

The Court stays the action pending completion of arbitration.

The Court sets a conference for April 13, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. to take status on the arbitration proceedings.

***

The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by LEGION CORPORATION on 01/14/2026 is Granted.

The case is ordered stayed pending binding arbitration as to the entire action.

Case Management Conference is scheduled for 04/13/2027 at 2:30 PM in Department 16 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

LEGION CORPORATION (Defendant) must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties, and file proof of service.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV141902: JONES vs LEGION CORPORATION 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by LEGION CORPORATION (Defendant) CRS# 642853414432 in Department 16 Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any opposing parties.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017