Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02079/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02079-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 29:2601 FMLA: Family and Medical Leave Act (Findings and Purposes)

---

1 

15cv2079 JM(BGS) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK G. GEFROM, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 

COMPANY, a California corporation, 

doing business as AT&T 

COMMUNICATIONS OF 

CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 15cv2079 JM(BGS) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

ARBITRATION AND STAY ALL 

PROCEEDINGS 

This order addresses Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all 

proceedings, filed on January 12, 2016. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff filed a notice of nonopposition on February 22, 2016. (Doc. No. 18). The motion was found suitable for 

resolution without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set 

forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-02079-JM-BGS Document 20 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

15cv2079 JM(BGS) 

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

BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2015, Plaintiff Mark G. Gefrom initiated this action against 

Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company, alleging a violation of the Family & 

Medical Leave Act, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. 

On November 13, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to strike. (Doc. No. 7). On 

January 12, 2016, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration and stay all 

proceedings. (Doc. No. 15). On January 22, 2015, the court continued the hearing date 

for Defendant’s motion to strike to a future date to be set after the resolution of the 

instant motion to compel arbitration. (Doc. No. 14). 

DISCUSSION 

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) was enacted by Congress for the purpose of 

“revers[ing] the longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements . . . and to place 

arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.” Gilmer v. 

Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991). To that end, arbitration 

provisions falling within the FAA’s purview are generally deemed “valid, irrevocable, 

and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Act embodies a “liberal federal policy favoring 

arbitration agreements,” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011), 

and is to be “rigorously enforce[d],” Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 

221 (1985). Accordingly, “[u]nder the FAA, the role of the district court is to determine 

if a valid arbitration agreement exists, and if so, whether the agreement encompasses the 

dispute at issue.” Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 755 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Kilgore v. KeyBank, N.A., 718 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc)). 

In its motion, Defendant states that there exists a valid arbitration agreement – the 

AT&T’s Management Arbitration Agreement (the “MAA”) – entered into by both 

Plaintiff and Defendant. Specifically, Defendant contends that (1) the MAA is an 

enforceable contract; (2) the MAA is not unconscionable; and (3) Plaintiff’s claims are 

within the scope of the MAA. 

/// 

Case 3:15-cv-02079-JM-BGS Document 20 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

15cv2079 JM(BGS) 

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

Based on Defendant’s arguments, and in light of Plaintiff’s non-opposition, the 

court grants Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, and stays this case pending 

arbitration of the matters at issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 30, 2016 JEFFREY T. MILLER 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02079-JM-BGS Document 20 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 3