Gooden v. Astrix Technology CA2/2

Filed 3/13/24 Gooden v. Astrix Technology CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

TONI A. GOODEN, B326835

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV45436) v.

ASTRIX TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maren E. Nelson, Judge. Affirmed.

DTO Law, Justin T. Goodwin, Erik P. Mortensen and Marisol Ramirez for Defendant and Appellant.

Bibiyan Law Group, David D. Bibiyan and Henry G. Glitz for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Defendant and appellant Astrix Technology, LLC (Astrix), appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration. We find no error and affirm the order.

BACKGROUND There are two agreements involving Astrix and plaintiff and respondent Toni Gooden concerning Gooden’s employment claims: an April 30, 2021 contingent worker agreement to which Astrix, Gooden, and Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead), are parties; and a May 11, 2021 employment agreement, involving only Astrix and Gooden. Astrix is a company that places contingent workers in science-based companies. Gooden was hired by Astrix for a temporary assignment at Kite Pharma, Inc. (Kite), a Gilead subsidiary. Before beginning the assignment, Gooden was required to sign Gilead’s contingent worker agreement that included binding arbitration for disputes involving a “Worker and Gilead or their related parties.” The agreement was attached to an email sent to Gooden. Astrix contends Gooden signed the agreement via DocuSign on April 30, 2021. Gooden’s lawsuit against Astrix Gooden’s employment with Astrix lasted until October 2021. Subsequently she sued Astrix and others for various Labor Code violations. The claims were brought on behalf of Gooden and a putative class. After dismissing the other defendants from her suit, Gooden filed a first amended complaint solely against Astrix. Astrix filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the April 30, 2021 contingent worker agreement. Astrix admitted it lacked a copy signed by Gooden and, instead, offered a form agreement and testimony from individuals who stated they had