MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 04/08/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Stay Action Pending Arbitration in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Defendant PowerSchool Group LLC’s (“Defendant”) motion to stay this action pending arbitration is GRANTED.

Plaintiff in pro per Autra Minnifield (“Plaintiff”) filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on August 9, 2024, thereby initiating arbitration against Defendant, her former employer. (Declaration of Eric M. Lloyd (“Lloyd Decl.”) ¶ 4, Ex. A.)

Three months later, on November 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action asserting the same claims in her arbitration demand; namely, employment discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and hostile work environment. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges she “files this complaint solely to preserve her claims while arbitration proceedings are pending, as outlined in the arbitration agreement between the parties.” (Complaint at 2:14-16.)

On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff field an amended arbitration demand to “clarif[y] and expand[] upon the original Demand for Arbitration . . . to ensure alignment with factual developments and to fully articulate the claims raised.” (Lloyd Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.)

Defendant contends Plaintiff’s arbitration demands cover the exact same claims asserted in this action, and thus it is improper and a waste of court and party resources to litigate this matter while simultaneously resolving the dispute in arbitration.

On January 13, 2025, defense counsel, Kyle Owen, contacted Minnifield to propose that she voluntarily dismiss her complaint or stipulate to staying this matter while the parties resolve her dispute in arbitration. (Declaration of Kyle W. Owen (“Owen Decl.”) ¶ 3.) Minnifield declined both options. (Owen Decl. ¶ 3.)

Defendant moves to stay this action pending arbitration pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority to control its docket. Courts routinely stay matters where circumstances warrant. (Frieberg v City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489 [“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”].)

This matter was originally noticed for a hearing on May 20, 2025. On March 12, 2025, Defendant submitted a letter to the Court stating it learned that an earlier hearing date of April 8, 2025, had become available since the motion was filed. At Defendant’s request, on March 18, 2025, the Court advanced the hearing to today’s date. At the time of the advancement, Plaintiff had already filed an opposition. Plaintiff also filed an

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 04/08/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Stay Action Pending Arbitration in Department 54

“Amended Opposition” on March 25, 2025.

In opposition, Plaintiff asks that “this Court exercise its authority to retain jurisdiction over this matter.” To be clear, if this motion to stay is granted, that does not divest the Court of jurisdiction over the matter. It merely puts the action on hold pending completion of arbitration.

Plaintiff’s detailed accounts regarding the actions she took to resolve her complaints internally with Defendant prior to demanding arbitration and filing this action are irrelevant to this motion. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant and AAA have acted improperly in the arbitration, which has created substantial prejudice against her such that arbitration has become fundamentally unfair. Plaintiff contends Defendant has wrongfully delayed arbitration by delaying payment of fees, requesting extensions of time to respond to the arbitration demand, failing to meaningfully engage in the selection of an arbitrator, and engaging in other purported delay tactics.

She further contends AAA has improperly extended Defendant’s deadlines and ignored her objections. Such assertions are irrelevant to the Court’s evaluation as to whether a stay is appropriate at this time and Plaintiff cannot, by way of her opposition, seek affirmative relief based upon any purported breach of the arbitration agreement by Defendant. If Plaintiff seeks such relief she must do so by way of a properly noticed motion.

Moreover, the legal authorities cited by Plaintiff are inapplicable to the issues presented by this motion to stay. For example, Plaintiff relies on Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, and Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, to contend that the arbitration agreement between her and PowerSchool is substantively and procedurally unconscionable. (Pl.’s Opp’n at p. 4.) Those issues are not before the Court. There is no pending motion to compel arbitration. Indeed, Plaintiff already conceded the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable when she initiated arbitration.

Plaintiff also cites to Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, for the proposition that judicial intervention is needed where fraud exists in the execution of an arbitration agreement, and in the arbitration proceedings themselves. (Pl.’s Opp’n at p. 4.) The factual and procedural circumstances presented in Engalla are distinguishable. In Engalla, the plaintiff filed a civil complaint for, among other things, fraud in the execution of the arbitration agreement and fraud in the arbitration proceedings due, in part, to a stalled arbitration process. (Id. at pp. 963-970.)

After defendant Kaiser moved to compel arbitration, the trial court denied the motion based on a factual finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the plaintiff’s fraud claims and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. (Id. at p. 970.) The California Supreme Court ultimately determined that there were sufficient facts to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 04/08/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Stay Action Pending Arbitration in Department 54

sustain the plaintiff’s fraud claims, but the trial court needed to resolve conflicting evidence in order to make a final, factual determination about whether fraud invalidated the arbitration agreement. (Id. at pp. 973–81.) Here, in contrast, Plaintiff initiated arbitration, conceded that her claims are covered by the arbitration agreement, and then filed a civil complaint to “preserve her claims while arbitration is pending.” (Complaint at p. 2.) Defendant then moved to stay this action pending completion of arbitration.

On reply, Defendant emphasizes that the risks of parallel litigation are already apparent given that Plaintiff has two pending motions before this Court – a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which was heard on April 7, 2025, and a motion to compel discovery responses, which is set to be heard on April 21, 2025. Defendant asserts that this poses the potential of conflicting rulings between the Court and the arbitrator and does not promote judicial efficiency.

The Court agrees that a stay will promote judicial efficiency, prevent the risk of conflicting rulings, and preserve the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Arbitration was initiated by Plaintiff before she filed this action and permitting this action to continue alongside arbitration would undermine the arbitration proceedings and the arbitrator’s authority. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay is GRANTED. This matter is STAYED pending completion of arbitration. Defendant is directed to file and serve a notice of stay as required under California Rules of Court, rule 3.650, and shall thereafter file a notice of termination or modification of stay at the appropriate time.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Defendant is directed to contact Plaintiff and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Defendant is unable to contact Plaintiff prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 04/08/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Stay Action Pending Arbitration in Department 54

may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.