Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05404/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05404-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A.T. Kearny, Inc.
Defendant
Rand Garbacz
Plaintiff

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARBACZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

A.T. KEARNY, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-05404 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MARCH 31, 2006:

The Court tentatively DENIES the motion of Defendant A.T. Kearney, Inc. (“ATK”) to

compel arbitration. The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities

and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the

parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the

Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to

make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are

ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional

briefing. Cf. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument

to explain their reliance on such authority.

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Plaintiff Rand Garbacz (“Garbacz”) contends that the Addendum 1: Arbitration

Procedures to the Employment Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of

Case 3:05-cv-05404-JSW Document 52 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Jennifer M. Schulte was signed by Garbacz in July and then later repudiated when ATK

changed the terms of the employment offer. 

(a) How does ATK respond to this contention? If the offer letter sent in July 2003

was not repudiated, including all the agreements and addendums attached to the

offer letter, then why did ATK send a new offer letter with different terms in

September 2003? 

(b) If Garbacz repudiated his agreement to the documents signed in July, how can

ATK rely on the Addendum signed by Garbacz in July? 

(c) What addendums regarding arbitration, if any, were attached to the Employment

Agreement ATK contends was signed by both parties in September 2003?

(2) When did the parties sign the Employment Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the

Schulte Declaration? Which party signed it first? 

(3) The offer letter signed by Garbacz on September 6, 2003 states that it is contingent upon

Garbacz signing certain attached agreements, including an employment agreement. Did

Garbacz sign an employment agreement attached to the September 2003 offer letter? If

so, is it the Employment Agreement attached to the Schulte Declaration as Exhibit A?

(4) The Employment Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Schulte Declaration provides

that it is “effective as of the date (the ‘effective date’) set forth on the signature page.” 

(Shulte Decl., Ex. A at 4.) On the last page of the Employment Agreement, which

contains the signature blocks, it provides that “the parties have executed this Agreement

as of the Effective Date set forth below.” (Id. at 12.) Just below this paragraph the

Employment Agreement states “EFFECTIVE DATE:____________________.” (Id.) 

No date is written on this line. Is the failure to have an effective date fatal to the

agreement? Based on what authority is the Court authorized or prohibited from inserting

in or determining a date when the purported agreement became effective? 

(5) ATK argues that even if the Court does not consider the “Arbitration Procedures”

attached to the Schulte Declaration, Garbacz agreed to submit all disputes arising out of

or relating to his employment or termination to final and binding arbitration in the

Case 3:05-cv-05404-JSW Document 52 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Employment Agreement. Paragraph 12 of the Employment Agreement attached as

Exhibit A to the Schulte Declaration provides that “any controversy or dispute between

Employee and the Company ... related to or arising out of Employee’s employment or

the termination thereof (other than disputes regarding an alleged violation of Paragraphs

6, 7, or 9 ...) including any claim of wrongful termination, constructive termination,

employment discrimination or workplace torts ...shall be fully resolved pursuant to the

Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Procedures attached as Addendum 1 and fully

incorporated herein.” (emphasis added)

(a) The Employment Agreement does not actually specify that all disputes arising

out of or relating to Garbacz’s employment or termination shall be resolved

pursuant to final and binding arbitration. The agreement merely provides that

such disputes shall be resolved pursuant to the “Dispute Resolution and

Arbitration Procedures” allegedly attached to the agreement. The phrase

“Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Procedures” does not make clear that all

disputes would be resolved pursuant to final and binding arbitration, let alone

arbitration at all. It is conceivable that in addition to addressing arbitration, a

document by such a name addresses procedures for resolving disputes internally

or requirements to engage in mediation. Accordingly, how does ATK support its

argument that Garbacz agreed to be limited to arbitration in the Employment

Agreement?

(b) ATK contends that the Addendum 1 attached to the Schulte Declaration was the

addendum referenced in Paragraph 12 of the Employment Agreement. However

the Employment Agreement describes the Addendum 1 as the “Dispute

Resolution and Arbitration Procedures” and the document attached to the Schulte

Declaration is entitled “Arbitration Procedures.” What evidence demonstrates

that the addendum entitled “Arbitration Procedures” is the addendum referenced

by and attached to the Employment Agreement signed by Garbacz?

Case 3:05-cv-05404-JSW Document 52 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

(6) Does Garbacz contend that when he signed the document entitled Arbitration Procedures

in July that he attempted, but was unable, to negotiate or modify any of the terms of the

agreement? 

(7) Would ATK have allowed Garbacz to become an employee without signing an

agreement to arbitrate?

(8) Where did Garbacz live when his was employed by ATK?

(9) Other than paragraph 4 of the Schulte Declaration, what evidence supports ATK’s

argument that Garbacz was an employee of the Plano, Texas office?

(10) “When considering a motion to compel arbitration, the court applies a standard similar to

the summary judgment standard of Fed. R. Civ .P. 56. ... If there is doubt as to whether

such an agreement exists, the matter should be resolved through an evidentiary hearing

or mini-trial. ... When considering a motion to compel arbitration which is opposed on

the ground that there is no binding agreement to arbitrate, the district court should give

the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise.” 

McCarthy v. Providential Corp., 1994 WL 387852, *2 (N.D. Cal. July 19,1994). If the

Court finds there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an

agreement to arbitrate, should the Court proceed to an evidentiary hearing or a mini-trial

on this threshold issue? Do the parties contend that this issue should be determined by a

jury or the Court?

(11) Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: March 30, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05404-JSW Document 52 Filed 03/30/06 Page 4 of 4