Court Opinion

ID: 9367683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 17:02:14.341284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:02.212132
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/1/23 Garcia v. Clinicas de Salud del Pueblo, Inc. CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 LYDIA GARCIA,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E077311

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIC1905175)

 CLINICAS DE SALUD DEL PUEBLO,                                           ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
 INC.,
                                                                         [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
          Defendant and Appellant.

         The opinion herein, filed on January 30, 2023, is modified as follows:

         On page 6, the sentence “Respondent is to recover her costs on appeal” is to be

deleted and replaced with the sentence, “Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, each

party shall bear their own costs.”

         The modification does not affect the judgment.

         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                                      FIELDS
                                                                                                                           J.
We concur:

                                                             1
CODRINGTON
          Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL
                    J.

                         2
Filed 1/30/23 Garcia v. Clinicas De Salud Del Pueblo, Inc. CA4/2 (unmodified opinion)
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 LYDIA GARCIA,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E077311

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIC1905175)

 CLINICAS DE SALUD DEL PUEBLO,                                           OPINION
 INC.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sunshine S. Sykes, Judge.

Dismissed.

         Paul Hastings, Paul W. Cane, Jr., Nancy L. Abell; Call & Jensen and

John T. Egley for Defendant and Appellant.

         CounselOne, Anthony J. Orshansky, Jennifer L. Conner; Lawyers for Justice and

Edwin Aiwazian for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                    I. INTRODUCTION

       Defendant and appellant, Clinicas De Salud Del Pueblo, Inc., operates multiple

medical clinics in California. In 2019, plaintiff and respondent, Lydia Garcia, filed a

civil complaint alleging various claims against defendant arising out of her employment.

Defendant moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained

within plaintiff’s initial application for employment with defendant. The trial court

denied the motion, concluding that the arbitration provisions were both procedurally and

substantively unconscionable. Defendant appeals from this order, arguing that the trial

court erred in concluding the arbitration provisions were unconscionable or, alternatively,

that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to sever any unconscionable term and

enforce the remainder of the arbitration agreement.

       However, following issuance of our tentative opinion in which we concluded the

appellant forfeited its claims of error, the parties filed a stipulation requesting dismissal

of the appeal. As a result, we exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal.

                       II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against defendant alleging multiple claims arising

out of her employment. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s

claims. In support of the motion, defendant submitted only the declaration of its human

resources director, who declared that (1) plaintiff’s personnel file contained a three-page

employment application completed by plaintiff at the time she applied for employment

with defendant; (2) the application included a provision for arbitration of all claims

related to plaintiff’s employment; and (3) defendant hired plaintiff as a medical assistant

                                               2
after she submitted her application. A copy of the application was attached to the

declaration.

       The first page of the application bore defendant’s letterhead, followed by boxes

designed for an applicant to provide basic identifying information. The applicant was

then asked a series of questions to verify basic eligibility for employment. These basic

questions were followed by four sections with titles such as “Education,” “Employment

Experience,” “Skills,” and “References,” with each section containing boxes for an

applicant to provide information related to each category. The bottom of the second page

contained a signature line for the applicant to certify the accuracy of the information

provided.

       The third page of the application had no title. Instead, wording across the top of

the page stated: “Please read carefully, initial each paragraph and sign below.” These

instructions were followed by four paragraphs with a line next to each paragraph for an

applicant to initial. Each paragraph consisted of single- space, block text in identical size

font, with no headings to differentiate the subject matter of any paragraph.

       By initialing the first paragraph, the applicant again certified the accuracy of all

the information provided on the application but further agreed that any omissions or

misstatements would constitute grounds for termination of any future employment with

defendant. By initialing the second paragraph, the applicant authorized efforts to

investigate the applicant’s background, as well as authorized third parties to disclose

information about the applicant. The second paragraph also included a broad release of

                                              3
all parties involved in any investigation from “any and all claims, demands or liabilities

arising out of or in any way related to such investigations or disclosure.”

       The third paragraph contained the arbitration provisions at issue in this case,

stating: “I hereby agree to submit . . . to binding arbitration all disputes and claims

arising out of the submission of this application. I further agree, in the event that I am

hired by the Agency, that all disputes that cannot be resolved by informal internal

resolution, which might arise out of my employment with the company . . . will be

submitted to binding arbitration. I agree that such arbitration shall be conducted under

the rules of the American Arbitration Association. This application contains the entire

agreement between the parties with regard to dispute resolution and there is no other

agreement as to dispute resolution[n], either oral or written.”

       Finally, by initialing the fourth paragraph, the applicant agreed that “nothing

contained in the application, or conveyed during any interview which may be granted . . .

is intended to create an employment contract between me and the Agency.” It further

provided that any future employment would be at will and that “no promise or

representations contrary to the foregoing are binding on the Agency, unless made in

writing and signed by me and the company’s designated representative.” The copy of the

employment application attached to defendant’s motion bore plaintiff’s initials next to

each paragraph and her signature at the bottom of the second and third pages. There were

no corresponding countersignatures by defendant.

       In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted her own declaration, stating that

(1) she was told to sign and complete multiple forms in order to be considered for

                                              4
employment with defendant; (2) she did not have the power to negotiate any provisions

of the employment application; (3) she was not informed by defendant that the

application contained an arbitration provision; and (4) she did not understand that she had

agreed to submit any claims to arbitration when completing the application. Plaintiff also

submitted excerpts from defendant’s employee handbook setting forth defendant’s

informal internal dispute resolution procedure, which required submission of written

grievances with at least four levels of management, as well as written responses to any

proposals made by defendant in response to plaintiff’s written grievances.

       The trial court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but did not issue a

statement of decision. In a written minute order, the trial court stated: “The arbitration

agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and there is no single

provision the court can strike to remove the ‘unconscionable taint.’ Rather, the court

would be required to rewrite the agreement to ensure mutuality and fairness; however, the

court lacks the power to do so.” Defendant appeals from this order.

                                     III. DISCUSSION

       Following completion of briefing, issuance of our tentative opinion, request for

oral argument in this matter, and a request for continuance of oral argument, the parties

filed a request for dismissal of the appeal. Once the record on appeal has been filed in

the reviewing court, a party is not entitled to dismissal as a matter of right, and dismissal

is instead within the reviewing court’s discretion. (Jackpot Harvesting, Inc. v. Applied

Underwriters, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 719, 728, fn. 10; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule

8.244(c).) We exercise our discretion to do so in this case, and the appeal is dismissed.

                                              5
                                  IV. DISPOSITION

       The appeal is dismissed. Respondent is to recover her costs on appeal. (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 8.278.)

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                             FIELDS
                                                                                      J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
          Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL
                          J.

                                           6