RAMSEY vs EDWARD W. SCOTT ELECTRIC CO., INC.; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV121119: RAMSEY vs EDWARD W. SCOTT ELECTRIC CO., INC.; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Edward W. Scott Electric Co., Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (Defendant) CRS# 747402274171 in Department 518 Tentative Ruling - 06/03/2026 Mark Fickes The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Edward W. Scott Electric Co., Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive on 05/04/2026 is Granted.

Background

Plaintiff Jason Ramsey was hired by Defendant Edward W. Scott Electric Co, Inc. on August 17, 2022, and rehired March 29, 2024, and throughout both periods of employment he was a member of Local Union 595, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“the Union”). (MPA, pp. 3 – 4, Lynch Decl. ¶¶ 7 – 9.) On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On August 27, 2025, Defendant was served via substitute service. (Proof of Service, dated 8/27/25.) On May 4, 2026, Defendant filed this motion to compel arbitration which is opposed.

Legal Standard

An agreement to submit disputes to arbitration “is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (CCP § 1281; see 9 U.S.C. § 2.) “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such 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, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) grounds exist for the recission of the agreement.” (CCP § 1281.2.)

Discussion

Here, all parties agree that the arbitration agreement exists but disagree as to whether it covers Plaintiff’s claims and whether Defendant has waived its right to arbitration due to actively participating in litigation.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV121119: RAMSEY vs EDWARD W. SCOTT ELECTRIC CO., INC.; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Edward W. Scott Electric Co., Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (Defendant) CRS# 747402274171 in Department 518 The collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) has a dispute resolution provision that requires both parties to submit to arbitration. (Lynch Decl. ex, 2 – 3 at Section 10.05.) Further, the agreement states: “No employee covered by the provisions of the Agreement will be discriminated against on the basis of his or her race, color, sex, gender identification, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, age, national origin or ancestry, with regard to hiring, promotion, termination, or any other term or condition of employment.

The intent and purpose of this Section is to meet the spirit and letter of all federal and state laws, regulations and executive orders that deal with equal employment.” (See CBAs at p. 1) And that “The parties to this Agreement are committed to maintaining a work environment that is free of unlawful harassment.” (See CBAs at p. 11) Plaintiff’s claims which are based in discrimination and harassment appear to be covered by the arbitration agreement, unless the arbitrator decides otherwise. Waiver Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has waived any right to compel arbitration by engaging in conduct inconsistent with the intent to arbitrate, including answering the complaint, engaging in discovery, and delaying bringing this motion for several months.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not met the heavy burden that must be overcome to enforce a waiver to arbitration. Plaintiff offers that Defendant has waived its right to arbitration stating, “A party seeking to prove waiver of a right to arbitration must demonstrate "(1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; (2) acts inconsistent with that existing right; and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration.” Hoover v. Am. Income Life Ins. Co., 206 Cal. App. 4th 1193, 1203 (2012).” (Opp. p. 6.)

Here, Defendant asserted the affirmative defense of arbitration in when filing its answer (see 5th and 6th affirmative defenses) and in replying to discovery requests. (See Vizzo Decl. ¶ 7 [“my office served responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests consisting of objections based on the CBAs’ mandatory arbitration provisions and advising of its forthcoming Motion to Compel Arbitration.”].) Although the Court agrees that Defendant delayed in filing this motion to compel arbitration for several months, it was not without notice to Plaintiff of its belief that the arbitration agreement applied and its intent to compel arbitration.

The Court weighs the factors and finds that although

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV121119: RAMSEY vs EDWARD W. SCOTT ELECTRIC CO., INC.; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Edward W. Scott Electric Co., Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (Defendant) CRS# 747402274171 in Department 518 Defendant did commit certain actions which are inconsistent with arbitration including filing an answer, beginning to engage in discovery, and causing some delay in the arbitration process, those actions have not substantially participated in the litigation to the extent that a waiver must issue.

Plaintiff was aware of the arbitration agreement and Defendant’s intent to enforce it since at least January of 2026 (Vizzo Decl. ¶ 2), trial is currently set for February of 2027, and no substantive discovery has occurred. Further, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests only with objections invoking its intent to arbitrate. (Id ¶ 7.) Arbitration is generally favored as a speedy means of dispute resolution, and here Defendant has not invoked the machinery of litigation in such a manner that the Court finds a waiver to the binding CBA.

Order Pursuant to the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Thus, the proceedings are STAYED, pending the outcome of the arbitration. The Court vacates the trial and related dates. The court SETS a status conference re arbitration for June 2, 2027, at 2:30 PM in Department 518.The Court expects the arbitration to be completed before the June 2027 status conference. -- The case is ordered stayed pending binding arbitration as to the entire action. Post-Arbitration Status Conference re arbitration is scheduled for 06/02/2027 at 02:30 PM in Department 518 at Hayward Hall of Justice.

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing. To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following: First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV121119: RAMSEY vs EDWARD W. SCOTT ELECTRIC CO., INC.; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Edward W. Scott Electric Co., Inc.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive (Defendant) CRS# 747402274171 in Department 518 subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion. Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party’s name and a brief statement of the party’s reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person. For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518’s Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)