Doe v. Ford Models CA2/5
Filed 8/3/23 Doe v. Ford Models CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
JANE DOE, B318923
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 21STCV01747)
FORD MODELS, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig D. Karlan, Judge. Affirmed. Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Matthew Oster, and Michael Sigall for Defendant and Appellant. Schimmel & Parks, Alan I. Schimmel, Michael W. Parks, and Arya Rhodes for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This appeal concerns a motion to compel arbitration filed by defendant and appellant Ford Models, Inc. (Ford). The trial court denied Ford’s motion to compel plaintiff and respondent Jane Doe (Doe) to arbitrate her sexual assault-related claims against Ford for two independently sufficient reasons, one of which is a provision of the California Arbitration Act (CAA) that permits a trial court to deny a motion to compel arbitration where pending litigation with a third party would defeat the purposes of arbitration and risk inconsistent judgments. Ford argues this reason is flawed because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), not the CAA, governs the arbitration agreement. Ford, however, never made that argument below—indeed, it never invoked the FAA at all—and the forfeiture of that point precludes reversal on appeal.
I. BACKGROUND A. The Facts as Alleged in the Complaint In February 2017, Ford offered Doe, who was then a model living in Los Angeles, a professional sportswear modeling job in Europe. Doe flew to New York and then boarded a private plane headed to London with Jordan Doner (Doner), a photographer, Gerald Banks (Banks), then CEO of Ford, and another model. Contrary to Ford’s representations, the ensuing events did not involve any professional photo shoots. During the flight, Doe fell asleep and woke to Doner rubbing her thigh. Doner later told Doe he wanted to photograph her in a jacket and a sheer thong. Doe acquiesced because she was trapped and scared. The situation did not improve after Doe and the others arrived in London. Doner wanted to photograph Doe wearing a
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)