Capachi v. Alta Education CA3

Filed 2/16/16 Capachi v. Alta Education CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

NICKI CAPACHI, C071025

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2011- 00113652-CU-WT-GDS) v.

ALTA EDUCATION, LLC,

Defendant and Appellant.

The superior court denied defendant Alta Education, LLC’s petition to compel arbitration of plaintiff Nicki Capachi’s employment discrimination claims. The court determined that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it incorporated the 1989 Model Employment Arbitration Procedures of the American Arbitration Association but Alta Education did not provide Capachi with a copy of the 1989 Model Employment Arbitration Procedures. On appeal, we conclude that Capachi failed to make a factual showing supporting her opposition to the petition to compel

1

arbitration. Therefore, we reverse and remand with directions to the superior court to grant the petition. BACKGROUND After her employment was terminated, Capachi filed a complaint against her former employer Alta Education alleging causes of action for disability discrimination and other employment claims. In response, Alta Education filed a petition to compel arbitration, presenting the arbitration agreement as an attachment to a declaration. The agreement, signed in 2008 by both parties, provided that “[t]he arbitrator shall be bound by the provisions and procedures set forth in the 1989 Model Employment Arbitration Procedures of the American Arbitration Association.” Alta Education also attached a copy of the 1989 Model Employment Arbitration Procedures to its petition to compel arbitration. In opposition to the motion, Capachi provided points and authorities. She also filed the declaration of her attorney stating that the request for arbitration was denied because the attorney believed the facts of this case were similar to another superior court case in which a petition to compel arbitration was denied. She attached the minute order from the other case. No other facts were proffered. In the points and authorities, Capachi alleged that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because she was “forced to sign the agreement and was not provided a copy of the 1989 Model Employment Arbitration Procedures . . . .” She also alleged that it was substantively unconscionable because (1) there were no rules regarding discovery, (2) the agreement and model rules do not require a written decision, and (3) they impose a risk that she may be required to pay arbitration costs if she does not prevail. The superior court denied the petition to compel arbitration. The court held that Alta Education had met its burden to show that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate the causes of action in the complaint, thus shifting the burden