N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHAW N SOC OLOFF, an individual, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. LR N C ORPOR

ATION, a

De l aware c orporation, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-57064

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-04910-C ASAGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C hristina A. Sny de r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd NGUYEN, C irc u i t Judge s. LR N C orporation (“ LR

N” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of its m otion to c om pe l a rbitration of pla intiff Sha

wn Soc oloff’ s c la im s. W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t whe n Soc oloff wa s hire d, he did not sign a

n a g re e m e nt to a

rbitrate c la im s a

rising out of his e

m ploy m e n t with 

# FIL ED MAR 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.LR

N . Unde r C a lifornia la

w, “ [t] he pa

rty se e king a rbitration be ars the burde n of proving thee xiste nc e of a n a rbitration a gre e m e nt.” Pinnac le Muse um Tow e r Ass’n v . Pinnac leMk

t. De v . (US), LLC , 282 P.3d 1217, 1224–25 (C a l. 2012). LR N’ s usua l pra c tic e is to re quire a ll e m ploy e e s to sign a

M utua l Agre e m e nt to Arbitra te C la im s. Howe v e r, LR

N fa ile d to produc e a

signe d c opy

of this doc um e nt, nor c ould thec om

pa ny produc e a

witne ss who obse rve d

Soc oloff signing or re t

urning suc h a doc um e nt. The distric t c ourt the re fore did not e rr in finding tha t LR N fa ile d to m e e t its burde n of e sta

b lishing the

e xiste nc e of a

n a rbitration a gre e m e nt. In the a lte rnative , LR

N a rgue s tha t Soc oloff signe d othe r doc um e nts whic h inc o rporate d the M utua l Agre e m e nt to Arbitra t e C la im s by

re fe re nc e . W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha

t LR N ha s fa ile d to de m onstra te va l id inc orporation by re fe re n c e . For the te rm s of one doc um e nt to be inc orporate d into a nothe r, “ the re fe re n c e m

ust be c l e ar and une quivoc a l, the re fe re nc e m ust be c a lle d to the atte ntion of theothe r party and he m ust c onse nt the re to, a

nd the te rm s of the inc o rporate d doc um e nt m ust be known or e a sily ava ila ble to the c ontra c ting pa rtie s .” Shaw

v . Re ge nts of Univ . of C

alif. , 67 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 850, 856 (C a l. C t. App. 1997). Soc o loff signe d a n offe r le tte r whic h sta

te d: “ B y signing this le

tte r be low, y ou a lso a g re e to a bide by a ll LR N polic ie s, proc e dure s, rule s a nd re gula tions c urre ntly

in e ffe c t or tha t m ay be a d opte d from

tim e to tim e .” The 2offe r le tte r the n e xpla ine d tha t “ [y ] ou a lso will be

re quire d to sign a

m utua l a gre e m e nt to a

rbitrate c la im s.” B e c a

use the offe r le tte r c onte m plate d the future signing of a

se pa ra te arbitra

tion a gre e m e nt, the re wa s no c le a r and une quivoc a l inc o rporation by

re fe re nc e . Se e Mitri v . Arne l Mgmt. C o. , 69 C a l. R

p tr. 3d 223, 229-30 (C a l. C t. App. 2007). Nor doe s the C onfide n tia lity and Inve ntion Assignm e nt Agre e m e nt (“ C onfide ntia lity Agre e m e nt” ) signe d by

Soc oloff obliga

te him to a rbitrate the c la im s pre se nte d in this la wsuit. TheC onfide n tia l ity Agre e m e nt spe c ifie d that “ [a ] ll dispute s re ga rding a ny bre a c h of this a gre e m e nt a re subje c t to thedoc um e nt ‘ M utua l Agre e m e nt to Arbitra te C la im s’ signe d be twe e n the C om pa ny and m e . ” B e c a

u s e this doc um e nt only

sta te s tha t dispute s a

rising unde r the C onfide ntia lity

Agre e m e nt a

re to be re solve d by

arbitration (a

nd be c a use Soc oloff’ s pre se nt c la im s do not involve the C onfide ntia lity

Agre e m e nt), it doe s not gove rn the insta

nt dispute . W e a lso a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t Soc oloff’ s c ontinue d e m ploy m e nt with LR N did not c re ate an im

plie d-in-fa c t a gre e m e nt to a rbitrate . Unde r C a lifornia la w, a n e m ploy e e ’ s a gre e m e nt to a

rbitrate e m

ploy m e nt-re l ate d c la im s ne e d not be e xpre s s, a

nd m a y be im plie d in fa c t. Pinnac leMuse u m Tow e r Ass’n. , 282 P.3d a

t 1224; se e also Dav is v . N o rdstrom, Inc . , 755 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th C ir. 2014). Howe ve r, whe re an e m ploy e e a gre e s to a

rbitra te Am e ric an s with 3Disa

bilitie s Ac t

(“ A DA” ) c la im s or a

na logous sta

te la w disc rim ination c la im s, the e m ploy e e m u st a t le a st be put on notic e tha t c o n tinue d e m

ploy m e nt c onstitute s a c c e pta n c e of a n a gre e m e nt to a

rbitrate . Se e N

e lson v . C y prus Bagdad C

oppe r C orp. , 119 F.3d 756, 762 (9th C ir. 1997). He re , LR N did not notify Soc oloff tha t his c ontinue d e m

ploy m e nt a lone would c onstitute a c c e pta nc e of a n a gre e m e nt to arbitrate . Ac c ordingly , the distric t c o urt did not err in finding no im p lie d -in-fa c t arbitration a gre e m e n t . For a ll of the a

bove re a sons, thedistric t c ourt prope rly de nie d LR

N’ s m otion to c o m pe l a rbitration. AFFIRM E D.

4