Shah v. Taskhuman, Inc.

following deponents: (1) The Plaintiff[;] and (2) The defendant, and if the defendant is not a natural person, the person who is most qualified to testify on the defendant's behalf." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (c)(1)-(2) [italics added].)¿¿¿ Unless good cause is shown for failing to comply with Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 871.26, subdivision (c), "a court shall impose sanctions as follows . . . [a] one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff's attorney . . . paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the provisions relating to depositions as prescribed in subdivision (c)." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (j)(2) [italics added].)¿¿¿¿ Analysis Defendant moves to compel Plaintiffs to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 to appear for their initial deposition. Defendant also requests the Court to impose sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel for failure to comply pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j)(2). The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 are mandatory. Here, General Motors served its responsive pleading on January 28, 2026.

Plaintiffs contend that the motion is now moot because Plaintiffs were deposed on August 3, 2026. (Woods Decl., P. 15.) In reply, Defendant concedes that Plaintiffs' depositions were conducted. Absent good cause, sanctions are mandatory. Here, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant did not provide an amended deposition notice for the scheduled depositions to be conducted on April 22, 2026. Additionally, based on the evidence before the Court, Defendant also played a role in delaying the coordination of the depositions.

Thus, the Court denies Defendant's request to impose sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j)(2).

Conclusion

Defendant's motion to impose sanctions on Plaintiffs' counsel is denied. Case Number: 26STCP00511 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Dept: 516 Judge James I. Montgomery Department 516 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Case Name: Shah v. Taskhuman, Inc. Case No.: 26STCP00511 Matter: Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings Moving Party: Petitioner Vivek Shah Responding Party: None Tentative Ruling: Petitioner Vivek Shah's petition is granted.

Petitioner Vivek Shah ("Petitioner") brings this petition to compel Respondent Taskhuman, Inc. ("Respondent"), a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 20 to arbitration. Petitioner moves to compel arbitration of his claims pursuant to the arbitration agreement that he accepted when Petitioner logged on to Respondent's website https://taskhuman.com/blog/. Respondent did not oppose the petition.

Legal Standard

Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 authorizes the court to order arbitration of a case if it finds the parties agreed to arbitrate that dispute, "and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 1281.2, subd. (a).) Arbitration agreements should be liberally interpreted and ordered unless the agreement clearly does not apply to the dispute in question. (Weeks v. Crow (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 350, 353; Segal v. Silberstein (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 627, 633.) The party moving to compel arbitration has the initial burden to (1) affirmatively admit and allege the existence of a written arbitration agreement, and (2) prove the existence of that agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. (Rosenthal v.

Great W. Fin. Sec. Corp, 14 Cal. 4th 394, 413.) Once this is met, the burden shifts to the responding party to prove that the agreement is unenforceable by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ibid.) "'Doubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration. The court should order them to arbitrate unless it is clear that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to cover the dispute.'" (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v.

State¿ (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 198, 205.)

Analysis

Petitioner moves to compel arbitration of his claims against Respondent and stay the matter pending arbitration. Federal Arbitration Agreement The Arbitration Agreement ("Agreement") on Respondent's website expressly states, "the parties agree and acknowledge that this Arbitration Agreement evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce and that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. ("FAA"), will govern its interpretation and enforcement and proceedings pursuant thereto." (Petition, Ex. A, p. 15.) Thus, the FAA applies.

Existence of a Valid Agreement Petitioner argues that his claims are subject to arbitration pursuant to the Agreement. The Agreement states that: Petitioner argues that his claims are subject to arbitration pursuant to the Agreement. The Agreement states that: The parties agree that the Arbitrator ("Arbitrator"), and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any disputes relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of this Arbitration Agreement, including any claim that all or any part of this Arbitration Agreement is void or voidable.

The Arbitrator shall also be responsible for determining all threshold arbitrability issues, including issues relating to whether the Agreement is unconscionable or illusory and any defense to arbitration, including waiver, delay, laches, or estoppel. (Petition, Ex. A, p. 15.) ""Because no affirmative action is required by the website user to agree to the terms of a contract other than his or her use of the website, the determination of the validity of the browsewrap contract depends on whether the user has actual or constructive knowledge of a website's terms and conditions." (Nguyen v.

Barnes & Noble Inc. (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F.3d 1171, 1176.) Petitioner contends that he accepted the Agreement on Respondent's website when he used the website. To establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is sufficient for the defendant to provide a copy of the arbitration agreement or state the paragraph verbatim.¿(Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC, 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160 (2017); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1330.) At this stage of the analysis, the court does not need to make "an evidentiary determination of its validity." (Condee v.

Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.) Here, Petitioner has met its burden. Thus, a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Because Respondent did not file an opposition to challenge the enforcement of the Agreement, the Court grants Petitioner's petition to compel arbitration. Stay of Proceedings Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides that if the court has ordered the arbitration of a controversy, it "shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies."¿ (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 1281.4.) ¿

Thus, the Court stays this action pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.¿¿ Conclusion Petitioner Vivek Shah's petition to compel arbitration is granted. The Court stays this action pending the conclusion of the arbitration process. Case Number: 26STCV04954 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Dept: 516 Judge James I. Montgomery Department 516 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Case Name: Marquez v. Pollo Campero of California, et al. Case No.: 26STCV04954 Matter: Motion - Other to Lift Stay Moving Party: Plaintiff Jasmine Marquez Responding Party: Defendants Pollo Campero of California, LLC and Campero USA Corp. doing business as Pollo Campero Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff Jasmine Marquez's motion is denied.

Plaintiff Jasmine Marquez ("Plaintiff") filed this action against Defendants Pollo Campero of California, LLC, Campero USA Corp. doing business as Pollo Campero (collectively "Defendants") and Does 1 through 10. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are employment and wrongful termination related. On May 7, 2026, the parties stipulated to stay the proceedings until mediation was completed; if mediation were not successful, Defendants would file their motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff moves to lift the stay for Defendants' failure to pay fees, and requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,830.27.

Defendants oppose.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, subdivision (a) provides: "[i]n an employment or consumer arbitration that requires, either expressly or through application of state or federal law or the rules of the arbitration provider, that the drafting party pay certain fees and costs during the pendency of an arbitration proceeding, if the fees or costs required to continue the arbitration proceeding are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration, and waives its right to compel the employee or consumer to proceed with that arbitration as a result of the material breach." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.98, subd. (a)(1).)