Damian Gonzalez v. Clay Dunn Enterprises, Inc.

P.P. 11, 15, 18.) This includes information contradicting the declarations submitted in support of the motions to quash and information on wrongdoing committed after the motions were heard. (Ibid.)

This demonstrates good cause for the amendment. The Court notes that Plaintiff filed this motion only six months after filing the original complaint and had attempted to file an amended complaint even earlier, on April 6, 2026, which was rejected on procedural grounds. The Court finds no unreasonable delay and finds that Defendant WMH Project, Inc. would not suffer undue prejudice from the amendment.

The "prejudice" articulated in the opposition amounts to the ordinary burden of defending against additional claims. Defendant has not been deprived of the ability to disprove the allegations, and it is not automatically subject to the liability of another entity just because the FAC pleads joint liability. Defendant's arguments fail to identify any real prejudice that would warrant denying the motion.

Lastly, Defendant's contentions regarding the purported futility of the amendment are better addressed on a dispositive motion. These arguments "do not make [Plaintiff's] proposed first amended complaint futile in its entirety, justifying outright denial of the proposed amendment." (See Jo Redland Trust, U.A.D. 4-6-05 v. CIT Bank, N.A. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 142, 167.) "[T]he preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings." (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.)

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. [1] Plaintiff purports to re-name Chaud, Fischer, and Chabason as defendants, even though these individuals were never dismissed. The Court only quashed service of summons.

DAMIAN GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. CLAY DUNN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. | Case No.: 26STCV03209 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant's motion to compel arbitration | | |

BACKGROUND

On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff Damian Gonzalez filed this action against Defendant Clay Dunn Enterprises, Inc. for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated as retaliation for requesting sick leave. On June 24, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 17, 2026. Defendant filed a reply on August 21, 2026.

LEGAL STANDARD

"On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists...." (Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 1281.2.)

"The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability." (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

DISCUSSION

I. Proof of Agreement

"The moving party 'can meet its initial burden by attaching to the motion or petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the opposing party's signature.'" (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.) "At this step, a movant need not 'follow the normal procedures of document authentication' and need only 'allege the existence of an agreement and support the allegation.'" (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 755.)

Here, the relevant arbitration provision is contained in a Master Labor Agreement (MLA), which is a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the California Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association and the Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16 of the United Association. (Amberg Decl., Ex. 1.) The arbitration provision provides: "All claims or disputes involving alleged violations of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 16, the California Labor Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and all derivative claims under Cal. Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq., as well as for associated penalties, not otherwise covered by the Service Master Labor Agreement, shall be subject to final and binding arbitration pursuant to the Employment Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association." (Ibid.)

Plaintiff does not dispute that this agreement exists, is enforceable, and applies to him. In fact, Plaintiff has initiated arbitration of his Labor Code claims pursuant to the agreement. However, Plaintiff disputes that the agreement covers his claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

II. Application to Wrongful Termination Claim

The arbitration provision in the MLA applies to "[a]ll claims or disputes involving alleged violations of . . . the California Labor Code." (Amberg Decl., Ex. 1.) This is a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate. (See Vasquez v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 430, 434 ["A union-negotiated waiver of employees' statutory rights to a judicial forum for claims of employment discrimination must be 'clear and unmistakable'"].)

The wrongful termination claim is a claim "involving alleged violations of . . . the California Labor Code." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated public policy by terminating him in violation of Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 98.6, the same claims asserted in his arbitration demand. (See Compl. P. 27; Meskin Decl., Ex. 3.) Moreover, both the complaint and arbitration demand seek the same damages arising from the same wrongdoing.

The wrongful termination and Labor Code retaliation claims are merely different legal theories for the same injury and therefore constitute one cause of action. (See Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 576 ["Even where there are multiple legal theories upon which recovery might be predicated, one injury gives rise to only one claim for relief"]; see also Wade v. Ports America Management Corp. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 648, 657-58 [barring civil complaint for wrongful termination in violation of public policy because it asserted the same primary right as a prior arbitration grievance--the right "not to be discharged for wrongful reasons"].)

Plaintiff cites no law permitting adjudication of the same cause of action in two different forums. The law is in fact the opposite: "arbitrating parties are obliged . . . to place before their arbitrator all matters within the scope of the arbitration, related to the subject matter, and relevant to the issues." (Wade, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 657.) Plaintiff's wrongful termination claim falls squarely within this definition. Therefore, it is subject to arbitration in the same way as the Labor Code claims.

CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The case is stayed in its entirety.

ISRAEL MATTHEW ORTIZ, Plaintiff, v. CLAY DUNN ENTERPRISES, Defendant. | Case No.: 26STCV03209 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant's motion to compel arbitration | | |

BACKGROUND

On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff Israel Matthew Ortiz filed this action against Defendant Clay Dunn Enterprises for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to various Labor Code violations and was terminated as retaliation for complaining. On June 24, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 17, 2026. Defendant filed a reply on August 21, 2026.

LEGAL STANDARD

"On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists...." (Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 1281.2.)

"The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability." (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

DISCUSSION

I. Proof of Agreement

"The moving party 'can meet its initial burden by attaching to the motion or petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the opposing party's signature.'" (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.) "At this step, a movant need not 'follow the normal procedures of document authentication' and need only 'allege the existence of an agreement and support the allegation.'" (Iyere