Owens v. Intertec Design, Inc.

Opinion

TURNER, P. J.

I. Introduction

This appeal is from an order denying a petition to compel arbitration and refusing to stay the action until the dispute had been arbitrated. Because there was no evidentiary basis for the court’s order, we reverse.

II. Background

Plaintiff, Ronald L. Owens, filed an unverified complaint against defendants, Intertec Design, Inc., and Leon Kopyt, for: breach of an employment contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; intentional infliction of severe emotional distress; and fraud. The written employment agreement contained an arbitration clause as follows:

“Arbitra

tion: Any dispute arising out of or connected with your employment with the Company shall be submitted to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Office of the American Arbitration Association for resolution under the Association’s

[74]

Voluntary Labor Arbitration Rules. The arbitrator selected by the parties shall conduct a full hearing at which both parties shall be entitled to present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses and to be represented by counsel. The arbitrator shall issue a written decision which shall be final and binding on the parties. The arbitrator’s fee and the cost of the arbitration shall be shared equally by the parties.” Plaintiff opposed the petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiff relied upon the following “facts” as grounds for revocation of the arbitration agreement: plaintiff was a resident of California; the employment contract was entered into in Los Angeles, California; the employment contract was to be performed in Los Angeles; plaintiff’s 15 unnamed witnesses were California residents; it would be economically infeasible for plaintiff to transport his witnesses to Pennsylvania; the corporate defendant, Intertec Design, Inc., was a Delaware corporation, doing business in California and 5 other states, not including Pennsylvania; and Intertec Design, Inc.’s principal office was in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. In addition, plaintiff contended the employment agreement was a contract of adhesion in that: defendants drafted the employment agreement; defendants were in a superior bargaining position; and plaintiff’s employment by defendants was contingent upon his executing the agreement, hence he was economically coerced into signing the contract. Plaintiff presented