MACFARLANE vs EDVENTUREMORE!, et al.

The parties understand and agree that, by signing this Agreement, each is waiving his/her/its right to seek and obtain damages at law from any court.

The parties each have the right to be represented by counsel, at such party’s own expense.

....

Arbitration Procedures. The arbitration will be held under the auspices of a sponsoring organization, either the American Arbitration Association or Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services, with the designation of the sponsoring organization to be made by the party who did not initiate the claim. Arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association may be obtained at http://www.adr.org/employment. Arbitration rules of Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services may be obtained at http://www.jamsadr.com/rulesemployment-arbitration/. Employee may also obtain a copy of both arbitration rules from the Company.

...

The Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement, including but not limited to any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.

...

Arbitration Fees and Costs. The Company will be responsible for paying any filing fee and the fees and costs of the Arbitrator; provided, however, that if Employee is the party initiating the claim, he/she will contribute an amount equal to the filing fee to initiate a claim of the court of general jurisdiction in the state in which he/she is (or was last) employed. Each party shall pay for his/her/its own costs and attorneys’ fees, if any.

...

Voluntary Agreement. The parties each acknowledge and warrant that they understand the terms of this Agreement, and that he/she/it has entered into the Agreement voluntarily and not in reliance on any promises or representations other than those contained in the Agreement itself. The parties each understand and agree that, by signing this Agreement, they are waiving the right to a jury trial. (Farmer Decl., Ex. C.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiff initiated this case on November 18, 2025 for various FEHA and Labor Code violations including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, as well as wrongful termination. Defendants

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV155379: MACFARLANE vs EDVENTUREMORE!, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by EDVENTUREMORE! (Defendant) + CRS# 538628515250 in Department 520 move to compel arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement and rely on the Court Order granting their Motion to Compel Arbitration in class action case Macfarlane v. Eventuremore! et al., case no. 25CV154185.

Here, it is undisputed that the Arbitration Agreement bears Plaintiff’s electronic signature and establishes a prima facie showing that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her claims. (Farmer Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. C.) Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to defeat this showing but rather focuses on unconscionability as the basis on which she argues that the Arbitration Agreement cannot be enforced.

As a general principle, “the enforceability of an arbitration agreement is ordinarily to be determined by the court. (Ajamean v. CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 781- 782.)

Parties are allowed to agree to delegate the second “gateway” decision to the arbitrator, but that delegation must meet “two prerequisites to be effective”: (1) “the language of the clause must be clear and unmistakable“; and (2) “the delegation must not be revocable under state contract defenses such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.” (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 892.) The “clear and unmistakable” language of the first element “reflects a ‘heightened standard of proof’ that reverses the typical presumption in favor of the arbitration of disputes.” (Ibid., quoting Ajamian v.

CantorCO2e, L.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 787; accord Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (9th Cir. 2016) 848 F.3d 1201, 1208 [“whether the court or the arbitrator decides arbitrability is ‘an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.’ ... [T]he federal policy in favor of arbitration does not extend to deciding questions of arbitrability.”].)

Although Defendants only bring it up for the first time in their Reply, the Agreement includes a delegation clause, that states that the arbitrator “not any . . . local court . . . shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement[.]” (Farmer Decl., Ex. C, p. 2.) This language delegates to the arbitrator questions of arbitrability and is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to arbitrate the scope and enforceability of the agreement. (See, e.g., Malone v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1560 [noting delegation clause that provided “[t]he arbitrator has exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, or enforceability of this binding arbitration agreement” was clear and unmistakable].)

In arguing that the entire Arbitration Agreement is unconscionable, Plaintiff specifically identifies the delegation clause as one such term, because in part, “clear law establish[es] that formation issues are in the sole discretion of the Court.” (Oppo., p. 8:20- 23.) While this may be the case, Plaintiff does not really dispute that she signed the Agreement at issue; she does not offer any declarations to counter Defendant’s supporting declaration.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV155379: MACFARLANE vs EDVENTUREMORE!, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by EDVENTUREMORE! (Defendant) + CRS# 538628515250 in Department 520

When a party is claiming that an arbitration agreement is unenforceable, it is important to determine whether the party is making a specific challenge to the enforceability of the delegation clause or is simply arguing that the agreement as a whole is unenforceable. If the party's challenge is directed to the agreement as a whole--even if it applies equally to the delegation clause--the delegation clause is severed out and enforced; thus, the arbitrator, not the court, will determine whether the agreement is enforceable.

In contrast, if the party is making a specific challenge to the delegation clause, the court must determine whether the delegation clause itself may be enforced (and can only delegate the general issue of enforceability to the arbitrator if it first determines the delegation clause is enforceable). (See Malone, supra., 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1559-1560; see also Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 70.) Here, Plaintiff argues both.

However, the other primary basis for arguing that the delegation clause is substantively unconscionable is that nothing in the Agreement highlights the delegation clause, a fact that lead to the Court’s finding of unconscionability in Lim v. TForce Logistics, LLC (9th Cir. 2021) 8 F.4th 992. First, Lim, a federal case is not binding on this Court. Further, in Lim, the arbitration agreement consisted of 9 single-spaced pages of 10 point font; by contrast, the Arbitration Agreement here is less than three (3) pages long with short paragraphs and reasonably sized font. The cases are inapposite. Therefore, the Court finds that the delegation clause is proper and does not reach issues such as whether the arbitration contract cannot be enforced because it is procedurally unconscionable or whether it is substantively unconscionable. The arbitrator will decide these issues.

CONCLUSION

As Defendant has established that Plaintiff agreed to resolve the disputes by arbitration and that the delegation clause in the Arbitration Agreement is not unconscionable, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 97–98; Murrey, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 1236.)

This action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration. (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

The initial case management conference scheduled for June 25, 2026 is CONTINUED to January 8, 2027 for the parties to provide a status update regarding arbitration.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on May 28, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on May 27, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV155379: MACFARLANE vs EDVENTUREMORE!, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by EDVENTUREMORE! (Defendant) + CRS# 538628515250 in Department 520 the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.