Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Class Claims
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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Dual Diagnosis Treatment Ctr., Inc., (2022) 77 Cal. App. 5th 643). Here, the evidence submitted indicates that the arbitration agreement was sent to Plaintiff via email and that the Arbitration Agreement contained live links to the applicable JAMS Rules where Plaintiff had to go online to execute the arbitration agreement and the employment offer. The agreement clearly stated that the operative rules are JAMS Employment Arbitration Rules and Procedures Furthermore, the hyperlink was located in paragraph 3 of the Arbitration Agreement and was reasonably evident.
Therefore, Defendant's failure to attach a physical copy of the applicable arbitration rules does not render the agreement procedurally unconscionable. (Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., Inc., (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 314) Overall, the Court finds that the arbitration agreement exhibits a limited degree of procedural unconscionability. (Civil Code section 1670.5; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102; Pardee Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1081; (Ajamian v.
CantorCO2e, L.P., (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 771).
Substantive unconscionability typically is found in the employment context when an arbitration agreement is one-sided in favor of the employer without sufficient justification (Cook v. Univ. of S. California, (2024), 102 Cal. App. 5th 312, 321 reh'g denied (June 13, 2024) In this regard, the Court finds that paragraph 17 of the applicable JAMS Rules provide for reasonable discovery and though the Rules provide for at least one deposition additional depositions are permissible where the reasonable need is demonstrated.
Moreover, it has been held that JAMS Employment Arbitration Rules provide for adequate discovery. (Vo v. Tech. Credit Union, (2025), 108 Cal. App. 5th 632 reh'g denied (Mar. 4, 2025), review denied (Apr. 30, 2025" To the extent that the arbitration agreement provides that "Korn Ferry and Employee agree that any claims covered by this Agreement may only be brought in the party's individual capacity, and to the extent permitted by applicable law" this does not constitute an unlawful waiver of Plaintiff's representative claims. (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v.
Moriana, (2022)142 S. Ct. 1906, reh'g denied, 143 S. Ct. 6; Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104). This provision does not contribute to a finding of substantive unconscionability. Plaintiff's challenge to the indefinite duration of the Arbitration Agreement appears without merit as an employee can, and employees frequently do, an in this case, sue their employers after their employment ends or is terminated. This case is distinguishable from Cook v University of Southern California where the arbitration agreement was held unenforceable on various grounds including that the it was not only of infinite duration but expressly covered non-employment claims as well so that the Court of Appeal found the scope of the arbitration agreement to be overly broad and substantively unconscionable. (Cook v.
Univ. of S. California, (2024), 102 Cal. App. 5th 312, reh'g denied (June 13, 2024). This provision, if at all demonstrates minimal substantive unconsionabiilty. The Court finds that the predispute jury waiver is limited by paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Agreement which states that "Claims for sexual assault or sexual harassment as those terms are defined in 9 U.S.C. Sec. 401 that arose or accrued on or after March 3, 2022, and any claims that cannot be arbitrated as a matter of applicable law are not covered by this Agreement".
The court finds no illegal waiver of Plaintiff's Representative PAGA claim in light of the provision of the agreement that provides that "any claims covered by this Agreement may only be brought in the party's individual capacity, and to the extent permitted by applicable law. (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, (2022)142 S. Ct. 1906, reh'g denied, 143 S. Ct. 6; Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104). This provision does not contribute to a finding of substantive unconscionability.
Furthermore, Plaintiff's class claims may be waived and Plaintiff waived same by said agreement. The Court finds that the delegation clause is not independently unconscionable or confusing. The Court also finds that said arbitration agreement exhibits a modicum of bilaterality and meets the Armendariz requirements (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.) (2000) 24 Cal. 4 th 83). Accordingly, the Court finds that a valid enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties that covers the instant dispute.
Defendant's application is hereby granted. Plaintiff's individual claims including his Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) claims are hereby ordered to arbitration. Plaintiff's representative Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) action is hereby pending the conclusion of said arbitration. (Adolph v Uber Techs Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5 th 1104, Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1281.4) Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is hereby granted. (Evidence Code section 452) Defendant's evidentiary objections to Plaintiff's declaration are sustained.
Plaintiff shall submit Proposed Order that conforms with this ruling within five court days.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***