DOORNEWAARD, JOSEPH vs SCONZA CANDY COMPANY

Amended Responses. Therefore, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or via video to narrow down any issues in dispute remaining with Plaintiff's said Special Interrogatories following the service of Defendant's said Amended Responses. Parties are reminded that discovery is meant to be self-executing and that a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, (2007)148 Cal.App.4th 390; Clement v. Alegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).

Accordingly, this matter is continued to July 17th, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court. Plaintiff shall file a supplementary pleading no later than July 6 th, 2026, identifying discovery requests that remain outstanding. Defendant's response shall be filed no later than July 10 th, 2026.

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 - GRANTED.

The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties covering the instant dispute. (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 244; Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 962, 967). The Court also finds that Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce. (Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265).

The Court further finds that Plaintiff, as a member of the class of candy maker employees and based on his job description even if he "often bagged candy and placed it into shipping boxes for transport and placed refrigerated candy in the box truck for shipping " "actively" "engaged in transportation' of ... goods across borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce", nor did he play a direct and 'necessary role in the free flow of goods' across borders." (Vela v. Harbor Rail Servs. of California, Inc., (2026)120 Cal.

App. 5th 353; Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, (2022) 596 U.S. 450 at 458 (quoting Circuit City, Inc v Adams (2001) 532 U.S. 105 at 121; Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., (2020) 971 F.3d 904; Betancourt v. Transportation Brokerage Specialists, Inc., (2021) 62 Cal. App. 5th 552; Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, (2024) 601 U.S. 2460; Rubio-Leon v. Fresh Harvest, Inc.,(N.D. Cal. 2025)812 F. Supp. 3d 944).

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff is not a transportation worker within the contemplation of 9. U.S.C. section 1. Plaintiff's claims herein are therefore not exempt from arbitration. (Capriole v. Uber Technologies, Inc., N.D.Cal.2020, 460 F.Supp.3d 919, affirmed 7 F.4th 854; Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, U.S.2024, 144 S.Ct. 905; Lopez v. Aircraft Serv. Int'l, Inc., 107 F.4th 1096 (9th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1063, 220 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2025). Therefore, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1 et seq is applicable to the parties' agreement. Additionally, parties may agree to the application of the Federal Arbitration Act. (Tuufuli v. W. Coast Dental Admin. Servs., LLC, (2026)117 Cal. App. 5th 1048).

The Court also finds that said arbitration agreement as a contract of adhesion with a limited review period provided to Plaintiff before signing same exhibits some degree of procedural unconscionability which requires a high degree of substantive unconscionability to render said agreement unenforceable. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 111; Civil Code section 1670.5; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102; Lim v. TForce Logistics, LLC, (2021) 8 F.4th 992; Ali v. Daylight Transp., LLC, (2020) 59 Cal. App. 5th 462). The Court notes that as 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.

The Court finds that the arbitration agreement exhibits a modicum of bilaterality as either party may request arbitration. The agreement also meets the minimum requirements of fairness - (1) a neutral arbitrator, (2) more than minimal discovery, (3) the issuance of a written reasoned decision by the arbitrator (4) does not limit Plaintiff's remedies, and (5) does not require Plaintiff to pay costs that would not be paid in litigation. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal. 4 th 83).

However, the provision that requires arbitration of disputes beyond those between Plaintiff and Defendant extending to Defendant's "officers, agents or other employees " is substantively unconscionable and without justification. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83; Cook v. Univ. of S. California, 102 Cal. App. 5th 312, 326-27). The Court further finds that the parties' arbitration agreement is not permeated with unconscionability and is therefore enforceable. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83; Cook v. Univ. of S. California, 102 Cal. App. 5th 312).

The Court therefore exercises its discretion to sever said offending provision. (Civ Proc Code section Sec. 1670.5 (a); Carlson v. Home Team Pest Def., Inc., (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 619; Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc., (2004)115 Cal. App. 4th 638). Accordingly, said agreement shall only provide for arbitration of disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant. Therefore, Defendant's application is hereby granted. Plaintiff's individual Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) claim is hereby ordered to arbitration. Plaintiff's representative Private Attorney General Action (PAGA) claim is hereby stayed pending the conclusion of said arbitration. (9 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3; Adolph v Uber Techs Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5 th 1104, Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 1281.4).

CV-25-008095 -US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION vs BARKHOY, RAMSIN - Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal Without Prejudice and to Enter Judgment Pursuant to CCP 664.6 - GRANTED.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties of December 2025, and Defendant's failure to timely pay the sums due under said agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is currently in default of said agreement entitling Plaintiff to all outstanding sums under said agreement Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. The Court's dismissal order of December 12, 2025, is hereby set aside and vacated. Crediting Defendant with the sum of $675.70, paid pursuant to said agreement and including costs and fees, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $5,591.89. (Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299).

The following is the tentative rulings for a case 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***