DOORNEWAARD, JOSEPH vs SCONZA CANDY COMPANY

Class Deadline for Submission of Opt-Out Notices, Objections or Workweek Disputes. | 9-16-26 | Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval and submit due diligence declaration from Administrator. | A final fairness hearing in this matter shall be set for October 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24 of this Court. The Class Notice shall be revised to reflect the date of the final fairness hearing and the corresponding deadlines. Counsel shall submit a Proposed Order that includes the deadline for Counsel to file the Motion for Final Approval within five court days of the date of this ruling.

CV-25-000327 - DOORNEWAARD, JOSEPH vs SCONZA CANDY COMPANY - Defendant Sconza Candy Company's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Individual PAGA Claim to Arbitration and to Stay PAGA Representative Action Claim - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion. The court requires additional time to review this motion. Accordingly this matter is continued to June 4, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court CV-25-009369 - GRIFFITH, TRAVIS vs KORN FERRY ISP LLC - Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Class Claims - GRANTED.

Without directly addressing the issue of interstate commerce, the court finds, to the extent that the parties agreed in their Arbitration Agreement that the Federal Arbitration Act would govern their disputes, that the parties' Arbitration Agreement is governed by Federal Arbitration Act. (Tuufuli v. W. Coast Dental Admin. Servs., LLC, (2026)117 Cal. App. 5th 1048). The Court also finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties covering the instant dispute. (Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1281.2; Gamboa v.

NorthEast Community. Clinic, (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158). Regarding Plaintiff's claims of a lack of understanding of legal jargon and statutory references a party is deemed to have read and to understand the contents of a document he appends his signature to. (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC, (2017)13 Cal. App. 5th 1152). Moreover, an employer is not required to explain the terms of an arbitration agreement to an employee though a lack of explanation may contribute to a finding of procedural unconscionability.

Any state law requiring that would contravene the FAA. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111). The Court further finds that the parties' Arbitration Agreement was a contract of adhesion as Plaintiff was required to sign the arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. Plaintiff does not provide any evidence that attempts to seek clarification of any of the provisions of the arbitration agreement were unsuccessful. By itself, an adhesion contract may present a low or modest degree of procedural unconscionability, but that can rise to a moderate level when the party drafting an agreement that refers to arbitration rules fails to provide to non-drafting party a copy of the applicable rules(Nelson v.