Chun Ping Turng v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc.
Decision Date | 17 January 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 18-cv-02642-EMC |
Citation | 371 F.Supp.3d 610 |
Parties | CHUN PING TURNG, Plaintiff, v. GUARANTEED RATE, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Reuben D. Nathan, Nathan & Associates, APC, Newport Beach, CA, John Glugoski, Matthew Righetti, Michael C. Righetti, Righetti Glugoski, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Clint S. Engleson, Timothy Lloyd Johnson, Jonathan Hisataka Liu, Spencer C. Skeen, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
On August 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Docket No. 16 ("FAC"). Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on August 30, 2018. Docket No. 17 ("Mot."). Both parties were heard on the matter on October 25, 2018.
This is the second motion to compel arbitration filed in this case. Rather than respond to the first motion to compel arbitration, Plaintiff filed her FAC, raising for the first time a PAGA claim. CompareCompl., with FAC. Plaintiff has since conceded that her PAGA claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Docket No. 18 ("Opp.") at 23–24.
Plaintiff's claims arise under the Federal Labor Standards § 16(b); California Labor Code §§ 226.7(a), 512(a), 226(a), 201 - 203, 221 - 224 et seq. , 2699 ; and California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. FAC. Plaintiff argues that she and other class members are entitled to premium wages for overtime pay based on a regular rate with commission and bonuses. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff contends that Defendant denied her, and other class members, minimum wages owed to her and others based on overtime work laws, wages upon discharge, and compensation for meals and rest breaks. Id. Similarly, Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to keep accurate payroll and wage statements in accordance with California law. Id.
Plaintiff worked as an employee of Defendant from December 2015 to June 2016. Id. ¶ 14. Her role was that of a mortgage specialist in Orange County, California. Id. She contends that in that position she regularly worked over eight hours a day without overtime pay or compensation for rest breaks. Id.
After Plaintiff filed the FAC, Defendant moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). Mot. The basis for this motion is an arbitration agreement in Plaintiff's employment contract. Id. at 10.
Plaintiff opposes the motion to compel arbitration on several grounds. She claims that Defendant waived its right to arbitrate. She argues that the actual agreement is not valid because the express language of the agreement required a signature from the Executive Vice President, which was not satisfied. Opp. at 12. Plaintiff also contends that California law rather than Illinois law governs the contract despite a choice of law provision in the contract. Id. at 14–15. Defendant does not address this contention in its papers.
Plaintiff also challenges the arbitration agreement based on unconscionability. She asserts that the arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable because it is a contract of adhesion, and because Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the AAA rules which govern the arbitration agreement. Id. at 22–24.
Plaintiff further contends that the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable because the agreement requires her to arbitrate the types of claims an employee is most likely to bring while allowing Defendant the option to avoid arbitration for the types of claims that an employer is most likely to bring. Similarly, she takes issue with the conscionability of the choice of law provision as it requires Plaintiff to waive unwaivable claims. Id. at 24–29. Plaintiff also challenges, as unconscionable, a fee shifting provision and the forum selection clause. Id. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the defects in the arbitration agreement cannot be severed; therefore, if the Court finds that the contract is unconscionable, she claims that the Court cannot apply the agreement's severability clause. Id. at 30–32.
After the hearing, Plaintiff informed the Court that there is a parallel case in Sacramento County Superior Court (Tadena v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., et al. , Case No. 32-2018-00232323 (Sac. Super. Ct. 2018) ). The Tadena case is a class action with some overlapping claims to those in the present matter.
A. The Contract
The relevant provisions of the arbitration agreement read:
Docket No. 18-2 ("Plaintiff's Exhibit 1") at 13–15.
Arbitration agreements are "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable." 9 U.S.C. § 2. "When considering a party's request, the court is limited to determining (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, and if so (2) whether the arbitration agreement encompasses the dispute at issue." Ambler v. BT Americas Inc. , 964 F.Supp.2d 1169, 1173 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (Davila, J.) (citing 9 U.S.C. §§ 2 – 4 ; Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp. , 533 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008) ). If there is a valid arbitration agreement and if the agreement encompasses the disputed issue, the court lacks "discretion to deny the motion and must compel arbitration." Id. "By its terms, the [FAA] leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration." Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd ,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Josey v. Impulse Dynamics (Usa) Inc.
-
Martinez v. Vision Precision Holdings
...for "trade secret, noncompetition and intellectual property disputes" unconscionably one-sided); Chun Ping Turng v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., 371 F. Supp. 3d 610, 628-29 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (collecting cases) (finding wholesale exemptions for intellectual property claims and claims for injunctive......
-
Pereyra v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc.
...8, 2016. Confusingly, the parties have each submitted the arbitration agreement for a different employee (the plaintiff in the related case Turng). Turng v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., 371 F. Supp. 3d 610, 615 (N.D. Cal. 2019). However,both parties agree that it is identical to the copy of the a......
-
Brown v. Quantcast Corp.
...it. Under California law on contracts, unconscionability has two elements: procedural andsubstantive. See Turng v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., 371 F. Supp. 3d 610, 624 (N.D. Cal. 2019)."A sliding scale is applied so that the more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of p......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...(2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 969; Burton v. Cruise (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 939, 944; Chun Ping Turng v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. , 371 F. Supp. 3d 610 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Saint Agnes v. PacifiCare (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1187; Cal. Civ. Pro §1281.2. Assumption of the Risk precludes recovery when the p......