Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02563/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02563-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 10cv2563

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVIA SANTOS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV2563 DMS (POR)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

GUARD MANAGEMENT, INC.’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION

vs.

GUARD MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Guard Management, Inc.’s motion to compel

arbitration. (Doc. 28.) The matter is currently set for hearing on Friday, August 26, 2011. The matter

is suitable for submission without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the

following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint and motion for leave to proceed

in forma paurperis (“IFP”) on December 15, 2010. (Docs. 1-2.) On December 22, 2010, this Court

issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissing without

prejudice Plaintiff’s claims for violation of Title VII, libel, slander, conspiracy, and violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) based upon the April 2009 incident for failure to state a

claim. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the ADA based upon the May 2009 incident

survived. On January 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 4.) On

Case 3:10-cv-02563-DMS-DHB Document 38 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 10cv2563

February 3, 2011, the Court issued an Order finding the claims in the FAC against Defendant Guard

Management, Inc. sufficient to survive the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Feb. 3

Order at 2.) On July 28, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant Insurance Company of

the West’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. (Doc. 37.)

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Arbitration Act provides that “a contract evidencing a transaction involving

commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction

. . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity

for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. Under the Act, “[a] party aggrieved by the alleged

failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition

any United States district court which . . . would have jurisdiction under Title 28 . . . for an order

directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4.

“The court shall hear the parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for

arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing

the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. . . . If the making

of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the same be in issue, the court

shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof.” Id. 

III.

DISCUSSION 

Defendant argues Plaintiff entered into an arbitration agreement containing a compulsory

arbitration provision when she commenced employment with Defendant. Pursuant to the conditions

of the agreement, Plaintiff had an opportunity to opt out of the arbitration agreement, but elected not

to do so. (Pasko Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.) The agreement submitted to the Court by Defendant contains a

provision for mandatory arbitration of 

all claims or controversies . . . that Employee may have against Employer . . . relating

to[,] resulting from, or in any way arising out of Employee’s relationship with

Employer, Employee’s employment relationship with Employer and/or the termination

of Employee’s employment relationship with Employer . . . . The claims covered by

this Agreement include . . . tort claims for discrimination and harassment (including,

but not limited to, race, sex, religion, national origin, age, marital status or medical

Case 3:10-cv-02563-DMS-DHB Document 38 Filed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 10cv2563

condition, disability, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic protected by

federal, state or local law) . . . and claims for violation of any public policy, federal,

state or other governmental law, statute, regulation or ordinance.

(Koumas Decl. Ex. A.) Thus, it is clear that the arbitration agreement covers the claims Plaintiff

asserts in the present action. Plaintiff does not dispute that she entered into an arbitration agreement

with Defendant, but argues the copy submitted by Defendant is forged and the copy she in fact signed

shows she crossed out the word “binding” and wrote “non-binding.” (Santos Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.) She also

argues Defendant waived its right to enforce the arbitration agreement by failing to request arbitration

in defendant’s workers’ compensation claim or in a discrimination proceeding filed with the

Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). 

Although Plaintiff asserts the copy of the arbitration agreement submitted by Defendant was

forged, she admits signing an arbitration agreement when she began employment with Defendant. She

does not provide any evidence of the existence of a different arbitration agreement or any evidence

in support of her claim that the agreement submitted was forged. In contrast, Defendant submits the

declaration of Liza Prasko, the Human Resources Manager for Defendant, who declares she personally

witnessed Plaintiff sign the arbitration agreement submitted to the Court and that the document has

been kept in the regular course of business and has not be altered or modified in any manner. (Pasko

Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.) Accordingly, and particularly in light of Plaintiff’s acknowledgment that she entered

into an arbitration agreement with Defendant, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claim that the agreement

submitted to the Court is forged unpersuasive 

Plaintiff further argues Defendant’s motion should be denied because Defendant wived its right

to compel arbitration by failing to seek it in connection with the workers’ compensation and DFEH

proceedings. A party seeking to prove waiver must demonstrate (1) knowledge of an existing right

to arbitrate, (2) acts inconsistent with that existing right, and (3) prejudice to the party opposing

arbitration resulting from the inconsistent acts. Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412

(9th Cir. 1990); Fisher v. A.G. Becker Paribas Inc., 791 F.2d 691, 694 (9th Cir. 1986). However, as

Defendant points out, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has exclusive jurisdiction over

claims for workers’ compensation injuries. Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Compensation

Insurance Fund, 24 Cal.4th 800, 810-16 (2001). Similarly, the DFEH is charged with the exclusive

Case 3:10-cv-02563-DMS-DHB Document 38 Filed 08/22/11 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 10cv2563

power to accept complaints and issue right-to-sue notices. Under California law, an employee must

exhaust the administrative remedy provided by the Fair Employment and Housing Act by filing an

administrative complaint with the DFEH. See Cal. Gov. Code § 12960. In the present action,

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), which the Court denied as moot. Defendant has not to date challenged the merits of

Plaintiff’s claims or participated in this litigation in any other substantial way. Accordingly, Plaintiff

has not demonstrated Defendant engaged in acts inconsistent with its right to arbitrate. Moreover,

Plaintiff has failed to establish any prejudice to her due to Defendant’s acts. As Plaintiff has not met

her heavy burden of demonstrating waiver of the right to arbitrate by Defendant, the Court finds the

arbitration agreement enforceable and grants Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 22, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02563-DMS-DHB Document 38 Filed 08/22/11 Page 4 of 4