Cereceres v. AHMC Garfield Medical Center CA2/5
Filed 1/13/25 Cereceres v. AHMC Garfield Medical Center CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
GRACIELA CERECERES, B336812
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 23STCV20786)
AHMC GARFIELD MEDICAL CENTER, LP, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Fahey, Judge. Reversed with directions. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Cheryl A. Orr and William J. Tebbe for Defendants and Appellants. Pedersen Law, Neil Pedersen and Jamie Gottschalk-Hall for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________
In the trial court, defendants AHMC Garfield Medical Center, LP, and AHMC Healthcare, Inc. (collectively AHMC), brought a motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by plaintiff employee Graciela Cereceres. The trial court granted the motion in part, compelling arbitration of Cereceres’s employment-related claims, but denied the motion as to her claim for assault and battery. AHMC appeals from the portion of the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. We conclude Cereceres’s claim for assault and battery falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and therefore, we reverse the portion of the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and direct the court to order Cereceres and AHMC to arbitration.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
AHMC hired Cereceres as a transporter for the surgery department on June 21, 2011. Cereceres signed an arbitration agreement, which stated in relevant part: “I understand that it is my obligation . . . to submit to final and binding arbitration any and all claims and disputes that arise out of or are related in any way to my employment or the termination of my employment with AHMC. I understand that final and binding arbitration will be the sole and exclusive remedy for any such claim or dispute against AHMC Healthcare Inc. or any of its affiliated hospitals, facilities, companies or entities, and any of their employees, officers, directors, Medical Staff, physicians or agents (‘the Company’).” The agreement stated that it was governed solely by the Federal Arbitration Act and the procedural rules of the American Arbitration Association.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)