Court Opinion

ID: 9412084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 20:03:57.942423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:27.234699
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/28/23 Madrigal v. Garfield Beach CVS CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FIVE

JENNIFER M. MADRIGAL,                                        B321255

         Plaintiff and Appellant,                            (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. BC695352)
         v.

GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC,

     Defendant and
Respondent.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lia Martin, Judge. Dismissed.
      Law Offices of Anita Grace Edwards and Anita Grace
Edwards, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
      Payne & Fears, Daniel F. Fears, Andrew K. Haeffele, and
Leilani E. Jones, for Defendant and Respondent.
                     I. INTRODUCTION

     Plaintiff Jennifer M. Madrigal appeals from an order
denying her petition to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.1 We will dismiss the
appeal as having been taken from a nonappealable order.

                      II. BACKGROUND

A.   Complaint and Arbitration

      On February 20, 2018, plaintiff, a former shift supervisor
for defendant Garfield Beach CVS, LLC (CVS), filed a complaint
alleging gender discrimination, gender harassment, and
retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), constructive wrongful
termination based on FEHA, and failure to pay final wages in
violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 203.2
       On September 18, 2018, plaintiff and CVS stipulated that
they would submit plaintiff’s claims “to final and binding
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the [a]rbitration
[a]greement” with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) as
the arbitrator. The trial court accepted the stipulation and
issued a stay of the proceedings.

1    Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil
Procedure unless otherwise indicated.

2      Plaintiff’s complaint also named Robert Garcia as a
defendant, but there is no record of Garcia having appeared in
the trial court and he did not file a brief on appeal.

                                2
      On September 5, 2019, CVS submitted the matter to AAA.

B.    Arbitration Award

      On March 18, 2021, CVS moved the arbitrator to dismiss
plaintiff’s claims as being time-barred.3 CVS contended that,
according to the arbitration agreement’s terms, “[a]ll claims in
arbitration are subject to the same statutes of limitation that
would apply in court.” CVS argued that pursuant to the
applicable statutes of limitation and section 1281.12, plaintiff
failed to timely demand arbitration of her claims.
       On May 5, 2021, the arbitrator issued an order granting
CVS’s motion to dismiss. On August 25, 2021, the arbitrator
issued a final award in favor of CVS.

C.    Motion to Vacate

       On November 30, 2021, plaintiff moved to vacate the
arbitration award. Plaintiff argued the arbitrator exceeded her
authority pursuant to section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4),
substantially prejudiced plaintiff’s rights by failing to hear
evidence material to the controversy in violation of subdivision
(a)(5), and deprived plaintiff of a hearing on the merits of a
nonwaivable statutory employment claim. Plaintiff also argued
that the trial court, not the arbitrator, must determine whether
the arbitration agreement was unconscionable or illegal. CVS

3      CVS moved to dismiss plaintiff’s first through fourth causes
of action only. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her fifth cause of
action for Labor Code violations without prejudice.

                                 3
opposed the motion and requested that the court deny it and
affirm the arbitration award.
      On April 6, 2022, the trial court issued its order denying
plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Citing the
arbitrator’s factual findings and legal conclusions, the court
found the arbitrator had not exceeded her authority. The court
also concluded that it did not have discretion to review the
arbitration award for purported errors of law or fact by the
arbitrator. Further, the court found that the arbitrator had not
substantially prejudiced plaintiff’s rights by affirmatively
refusing to hear material evidence. Finally, because of the
limited scope of judicial review of arbitration awards, the court
declined to review the arbitration agreement for
unconscionability. In a minute order, the trial court set the
matter for a “Status Conference Re: Filing of Motion to Confirm
Arbitration Award,” which it scheduled for September 14, 2022.4
      Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the order and,
according to CVS, the trial court therefore did not proceed with
the scheduled September 14, 2022, hearing.

4      Our Supreme Court has disapproved of this practice: “If [a
petition to vacate an arbitration award] is made, the [California
Arbitration] Act requires the court to settle all issues relating to
the status of the arbitral award in a single proceeding, by either
confirming the award (as rendered or as corrected by the court) or
by vacating it. ([ ] § 1286 [‘If a petition or response under this
chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the
award as made . . . unless in accordance with this chapter it
corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the
award or dismisses the proceeding’]. . . .)” (Law Finance Group,
LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 947–948.)

                                 4
                        III. DISCUSSION

        “The right to appeal is wholly statutory. [Citation.]” (Dana
Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court (2010) 51 Cal.4th
1, 5.) As relevant here, section 1294 designates the following
orders relating to arbitration as appealable: “(b) An order
dismissing a petition to confirm, correct or vacate an [arbitration]
award. [¶] . . . [¶] (d) A judgment entered pursuant to this
title.”
        “[Section 1294] plainly provides for an appeal from an order
‘dismissing’ a petition to vacate or correct an arbitration award.
It makes no such provision for the denial of such a petition.
Moreover, the Legislature was aware of the difference between
‘dismissing’ and ‘denying’ a petition, since it used both terms in a
prior subdivision of the same statute. ([See § 1294,] subd. (a)
[‘dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration’].) . . .
Thus, an order dismissing a petition to vacate or correct on the
ground that the respondent is not bound by the arbitration
agreement results in a final disposition of the proceeding with
respect to that party and is, therefore, directly appealable. On
the other hand, an order denying a petition to vacate on
substantive grounds, which are enumerated in the applicable
statute ([ ] § 1286.2), is not a final disposition and, therefore, is
not directly appealable[.] [Citations.] Review of an order denying
such a petition may be had upon appeal from the judgment of
confirmation or by writ of mandate.” (Mid-Wilshire Associates v.
O’Leary (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1454–1455, fn. omitted (Mid-
Wilshire).)
        Plaintiff argues that the substantive effect of the
April 6, 2022, order was a dismissal, rather than a denial, of her

                                 5
motion to vacate an arbitration award, and is therefore
appealable. We disagree, as the cases cited by plaintiff in
support of her contention are distinguishable. (See Maplebear,
Inc. v. Busick (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 394, 400–401 [deeming an
order denying petition to vacate, on the grounds that the court
lacked discretion to consider ruling on the petition, a dismissal
because its effect was to dismiss the proceedings without
reaching the merits of the petition]; Cinel v. Christopher (2012)
203 Cal.App.4th 759, 766 [order denying petition to confirm
award found to be dismissal and therefore appealable]; Law
Offices of David S. Karton v. Segreto (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1, 9
[if trial court denies petition to vacate arbitration award, trial
court must confirm award, and appeal lies from judgment
entered in conformity therewith].)
        Plaintiff alternatively argues that this court should treat
her appeal as a premature appeal from a judgment confirming
the award, citing California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d)(2). We
do not do so as there has been no entry of judgment, as plaintiff
concedes.
        Plaintiff also argues “there is no legal requirement that
CVS file a motion to confirm the [a]rbitration [a]ward” and
therefore plaintiff would have no opportunity to challenge the
award. While it is true that CVS is not obligated to petition to
confirm an arbitration award (see §§ 1287.6 [award that has not
been confirmed or vacated has same force and effect as contract
in writing between parties to arbitration], 1288 [four-year
deadline to serve and file petition to confirm award])5, the trial
court has a mandatory duty to confirm the award and enter

5     At oral argument, CVS stated that it intended to petition to
confirm the award.

                                 6
judgment after denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the
arbitration award. (§§ 1286, 1287.4.) Here, the court has set a
hearing for the confirmation of the award and, once the judgment
is entered, plaintiff may appeal and seek review of the order
denying her motion. (Mid-Wilshire, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1455.)

                        IV. DISPOSITION

     The appeal is dismissed. Defendant Garfield Beach CVS,
LLC is entitled to costs on appeal.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                         KIM, J.

We concur:

             RUBIN, P. J.

             MOOR, J.

                               7