MAGDALENO vs JETRO HOLDINGS, LLC

simultaneously with, filing its motion to compel, there is no indication in the record that the court considered any of the relevant factors.” (Ibid.)

Given it is past the discovery cutoff date and there is no motion pending before trial to reopen discovery, it would be an abuse of discretion for the Court to consider Honda’s motion. The motion is DENIED as untimely.

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS CVRI2504018 ROWLEY. vs BAILEY COUNSEL FOR DENNIS ROWLEY Tentative Ruling:

Counsel is ordered to appear in person or via Zoom for an in-camera hearing.

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MAGDALENO vs JETRO MOTION TO COMPEL

HOLDINGS, LLC ARBITRATION Tentative Ruling:

Moving party: Defendant Jetro Holdings, LLC Represented by: O’Hagan Meyer LLP

Responding party: Plaintiff Aaron Magdaleno Represented by: Laurel Employment Law

On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff Aaron Magdaleno began his employment with Defendant Jetro Holdings, LLC as a Forklift Driver at their facility in Jurupa Valley. Plaintiff disclosed he had a back issue due to a prior car accident. He was required to work in extreme freezer conditions and move heavy boxes, which exacerbated his back condition. In December 2024 he requested disability leave, which was verbally approved. In August 2025, while on leave, he was terminated with no notice. He was cleared to return to work in December 2025 and in January 2025 when he contacted Defendant to return, he was informed he had been terminated.

On March 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed his complaint for: 1.) Disability Discrimination (Gov. Code, § 12940(a)); 2.) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (Gov. Code, § 12940(m)); 3.) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process (Gov. Code, § 12940(n)); 4.) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940(h)); 5.) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; 6.) Failure to Provide Employment Records

Upon Request (Lab. Code §§ 226, 1198.5); 7.) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.)

Defendant now moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant argues Plaintiff electronically signed an arbitration agreement on October 9, 2024 when he was hired which contains provisions requiring arbitration of employment disputes, a class and representative action waiver, and states it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

Plaintiff opposes the motion arguing Defendant failed to meet its burden to show the electronic signature was his and not anyone else. He argues he did not consent to arbitrate. He also argues the arbitration agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

In reply, Defendant re-argues arbitration is appropriate as Plaintiff does not dispute that he signed the agreement, he only states he does not recall signing the agreement. Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show the agreement is unconscionable.

Analysis

I. Standard

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (“FAA”) “ ‘[a] written provision in ... a contract evidencing a transaction involving [interstate] commerce to settle by arbitration the controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” (9 U.S.C. § 2.)” (Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans of California (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066, 1073-1074, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (9th Cir. 2013) 733 F.3d 928, 937.) The FAA was intended to reverse centuries of judicial hostility to arbitration agreements by putting arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts. (Shearson/American Exp., Inc. v. McMahon (1987) 482 U.S. 220, 225-226.)

II. FAA Applies

The FAA (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14) governs contractual arbitration in written contracts involving interstate or foreign commerce or maritime transactions. (9 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2.) “The ‘principal purpose’ of the FAA is to ‘ensur[e] that private arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms.’ ” (Lacayo v. Catalina Restaurant Group Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 244, 257 [citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 344].) The parties may elect to apply the FAA, even if there is no interstate commerce. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8, LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355.)

Here, Defendant provides a declaration that it is involved in interstate commerce. (Decl. of Calvin Chen (“Chen Decl.”), ¶ 4.) Plaintiff does not contest FAA applicability. The FAA applies.

III. Existence and Authentication of Agreement

Arbitration – whether under the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”) or FAA – “is a matter of consent, not coercion ... a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 [internal quotations and citations omitted].) The existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate is a “question of arbitrability” to be decided by the court unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. (Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (2002) 537 U.S. 79, 83.)

The party seeking to arbitrate must prove the existence of the agreement. (Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at 236.) If it does so, the burden shifts to the party opposing arbitration to “demonstrate that an arbitration provision cannot be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute” or that the agreement is otherwise unenforceable. (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686-87.)

In its moving papers, Defendant states that Plaintiff electronically signed the arbitration agreement on October 9, 2024 through the TalentReef portal. (Chen Decl., ¶ 18.) The Chen declaration references the Agreement as Exhibit A to his declaration, but no agreement is attached in the filing in eCourt. In fact, attorney Madison O’Neill also submits a declaration in support of the motion referring to Exhibit B, but no such exhibit is attached. The Court will continue the matter to allow Defendant to submit the missing exhibits.

The Court continues the hearing on this motion to 10/27/2026 at 8:30 a.m. Defendant is ordered to submit the missing documents for Court review no later than 10 court days prior to the next hearing.