Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00641/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00641-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RONALD DREW,

NO. CIV. S-06-0641 WBS GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION AND STAY

PROCEEDINGS

WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES; AMES

FIRE & WATERWORKS; WATTS

REGULATOR; WATTS INDUSTRIES,

INC.; AMES COMPANY, INC.; and

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive;

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This action arises from an employment dispute between

plaintiff/respondent Ronald Drew and petitioners/defendants Watts

Water Technologies, Ames Fire & Waterworks, Watts Regulator,

Watts Industries, Inc., and Ames Company, Inc. Plaintiff alleges

that defendants violated California Government Code § 12945.2

(the California Family Rights Act) when they fired him for taking

leave to care for his seriously ill wife. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.) 

Plaintiff also claims that defendants’ decision was unlawfully

motivated by retaliatory animus stemming from his complaints that

Case 2:06-cv-00641-WBS-GGH Document 13 Filed 08/01/06 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

female applicants were categorically excluded from employment in

defendants’ assembly division at their West Sacramento plant. 

(Id. ¶ 15.) This claim likewise arises under California

Government Code §§ 12940-12951 (the California Fair Employment

and Housing Act or “FEHA”). 

Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Superior Court

of California in and for the County of Yolo. However, based on

diversity of citizenship, defendants removed the case to this

court on March 24, 2006. Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 2 (the Federal

Arbitration Act or “FAA”), or alternatively California Code of

Civil Procedure §§ 1280-1294.2, defendants now seek an order to

compel plaintiff to arbitrate his employment dispute according to

the terms of a signed employment agreement. Defendants also

request a stay pending arbitration. 

Plaintiff does not oppose defendants’ petition. (Pl.’s

Response to Defs.’ Mot. to Compel Arbitration 1.) Furthermore,

an order compelling arbitration appears warranted based on the

arguments made by defendants. See 9 U.S.C. § 2 (“A written

provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving

commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter

arising . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable”);

EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 289 (2002) (“Employment

contracts, except for those covering workers engaged in

transportation, are covered by the FAA”); Circuit City Stores,

Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 123 (2001) (“[A]rbitration

agreements can be enforced under the FAA without contravening the

policies of congressional enactments giving employees specific

protection against discrimination . . . .”); EEOC v. Luce,

Case 2:06-cv-00641-WBS-GGH Document 13 Filed 08/01/06 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

Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 345 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2003)

(holding that employees can agree to arbitrate claims under Title

VII, FEHA’s federal counterpart, because Congress has not

“evinced an intention to preclude a waiver of judicial

remedies”); see also Zolezzi v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 789

F.2d 1447, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[W]hen the language is

ambiguous or unclear, any doubts about the scope of arbitration

should be resolved in favor of arbitration.”); Armendariz v.

Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83, 98 (2000)

(“California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid

arbitration agreements.”); id. at 90-91, 102 (establishing the

“minimum requirements” for arbitrating FEHA claims pursuant to an

employment agreement, “including neutrality of the arbitrator,

the provision of adequate discovery, a written decision that will

permit a limited form of judicial review, and limitations on the

costs of arbitration”). 

Similarly, a stay of these proceedings pending

arbitration is also warranted under either federal or state law. 

9 U.S.C. § 3 (after ordering the parties to submit to

arbitration, the court “shall on application of one of the

parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has

been had”); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1281.4, 1292.8.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to

compel arbitration be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this

matter shall be STAYED, and the Clerk administratively close the

file pending arbitration. The stay shall be lifted and the

matter reopened upon application of either party once arbitration

Case 2:06-cv-00641-WBS-GGH Document 13 Filed 08/01/06 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

is completed.

DATED: July 31, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-00641-WBS-GGH Document 13 Filed 08/01/06 Page 4 of 4