Rocha v. Telemundo Network Grp.

• Decision Date: 10 November 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 20-cv-23020-BLOOM/Louis
• Parties: CLAUDIA PLAZAS ROCHA, Plaintiff, v. TELEMUNDO NETWORK GROUP LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

CLAUDIA PLAZAS ROCHA, Plaintiff, v. TELEMUNDO NETWORK GROUP LLC, Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-23020-BLOOM/Louis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

November 10, 2020

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Telemundo Network Group, LLC's ("Defendant") Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration. ECF No. [6] ("Motion"). Plaintiff Claudia Plaza Rocha ("Plaintiff") filed a response to the Motion, ECF No. [20] ("Response"), to which Defendant replied, ECF No. [21] ("Reply"). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, all opposing and supporting submissions, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 8, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this employment discrimination action against Defendant in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. ECF No. [1-2] ("Complaint"). On July 22, 2020, Defendant removed this action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. [1] ("Notice").

In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following nine counts: (1) Discrimination in Compensation under Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206, et seq., (Equal Pay Act) (2) Sex Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), (3) Sex Discrimination in Violation of the Florida Civil Rights of 1992, Fla. Stat. § 760, et seq. ("FCRA"), (4) Race Discrimination in Violation of the FCRA, (5) Discrimination Based on Race in Violation of Title VII, (6) National Origin Discrimination in Violation of the FCRA, (7) Discrimination Based on National Origin in Violation of Title VII, (8) Retaliation in Violation of the FCRA, and (9) Retaliation in Violation of the Equal Pay Act. See ECF No. [1-2].

On July 29, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion seeking an order compelling arbitration and dismissing or staying judicial proceedings. Defendant contends that Plaintiff voluntarily entered into an employment agreement, ECF No. [6-4], that was contingent on her agreement to be bound by an arbitration program, ECF No. [6-7] ("Solutions Agreement" or "Agreement"), which is evident from Plaintiff's offer acceptance form, ECF No. [6-8] at 2. Plaintiff responds that the Solutions Agreement is not valid because the electronic agreement does not contain Plaintiff's electronic signature, and that she did not review and accept the Solutions Agreement. Plaintiff also claims that the Solutions Agreement is unconscionable and that, if this Court grants the Motion, a stay, as opposed to a dismissal, is the appropriate remedy. See ECF No. [20]. Defendant replies that all the claims in this suit fall under the Solutions Agreement and that the enforceability of the Agreement should be decided by the arbitrator. See ECF No. [6] at 7.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The presence of a valid arbitration agreement raises a strong presumption in favor of enforcement. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymoth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 630-31 (1985). Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), a written agreement to arbitrate is "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C § 2. The FAA "embodies a 'liberal federal policy favoring arbitrationagreements." Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Invs., 553 F.3d 1351, 1366 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983)). Similarly, the FAA provides that an agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable unless there is a reason in law or equity to invalidate the contract, and Florida courts have found that Florida law and public policy strongly favor arbitration. Fla. Stat. § 682.02; see Careplus Health Plans, Inc. v. Interamerican Med. Ctr. Grp., LLC, 124 So. 3d 968, 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla. 1999)). Thus, courts are encouraged to resolve any doubts in favor of arbitration. Id. Despite courts' proclivity for enforcing arbitration agreements, a party will not be required to arbitrate where it has not agreed to do so. See Nat'l Auto Lenders, Inc. v. SysLOCATE, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (citing United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960)), aff'd, 433 F. App'x 842 (11th Cir. 2011).

When faced with a facially valid arbitration agreement, the burden is on the party opposing arbitration to demonstrate that the agreement is invalid or that the issue raised is otherwise not arbitrable. See Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92 (2000) ("[T]he party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of establishing that Congress intended to preclude arbitration of the statutory claims at issue."). Additionally, arbitration "provisions will be upheld as valid unless defeated by fraud, duress, unconscionability, or another 'generally applicable contract defense.'" Parnell v. CashCall, Inc., 804 F.3d 1142, 1146 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443 (2006)).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant claims that the Solutions Agreement is valid because Plaintiff's employment was expressly contingent on her acceptance of the Solutions Agreement. As such, Defendantclaims that the Court should compel arbitration and either dismiss or stay the case pending arbitration. Plaintiff contends that she never signed the document, never reviewed the Solutions Agreement, and that the Court should stay rather than dismiss this case if it grants the instant Motion.

A. Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

In addressing a motion to compel arbitration, the Court must first determine whether there exists a valid agreement to arbitrate. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 473 U.S. at 626. This requires two separate determinations: (1) whether an agreement exists between the parties; and (2) whether the agreement is valid or whether there is a reason at law or equity to revoke the contract. Wiles v. Palm Springs Grill, LLC, No. 15-cv-81597, 2016 WL 4248315, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2016) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2); see also Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63,70-71 (2010) (explaining that challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement, as opposed to challenges to the validity of the "contract as a whole," are generally for the court to decide). As such, the Court must first determine whether an arbitration agreement exists in this case. See Wiand v. Schneiderman, 778 F.3d 917, 924 (11th Cir. 2015) ("Challenges to the validity of the contract as a whole are for the arbitrator to decide, whereas challenges to the validity of the arbitration clause in particular or to the very existence of the contract must be resolved by the court before deciding a motion to compel arbitration." (citing Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., 546 U.S. at 444-45 n.1)).

Additionally, where the parties dispute whether an agreement to arbitrate exists at all, the Court must begin by making a threshold determination as to whether a contract has been formed before assessing any delegation clause. See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 530 (2019) ("To be sure, before referring a dispute to an arbitrator, the court determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists." (citation omitted)); Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC,396 F. Supp. 3d 1194, 1200 (S.D. Fla. 2019); Seminole Cty. Tax Collector v. Domo, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-1933-Orl-40DCI, 2019 WL 1901019, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2019) ("Having found that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties, the Court now considers the application of the delegation provision within the arbitration clause."), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:18-cv-1933-Orl-40-DCI, 2019 WL 1772108 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019).

Furthermore, the party asserting the existence of a contract containing an arbitration agreement "must prove its existence by a preponderance of the evidence." St. Joe Corp. v. McIver, 875 So. 2d 375, 381 (Fla. 2008). The determination of whether an arbitration agreement exists is a "matter of contract." First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995). The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that a "summary judgment-like standard is appropriate and that a district court may conclude as a matter of law that parties did or did not enter into an arbitration agreement" only if there is not a genuine dispute of material fact concerning the formation of the agreement. Bazemore, 827 F.3d at 1333. Additionally, a dispute that is neither supported by evidence nor created by evidence but is just "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative" is not "genuine." Id.; see also Valencia v. 1300 Ocean Drive, LLC, No. 17-20669-CIV, 2017 WL 7733158, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2017) ("A mere scintilla of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice to defeat a finding that an arbitration agreement was formed. There must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.").

"Under Florida law, the party seeking to enforce arbitration has the burden of proving 'offer, acceptance, consideration and sufficient specification of essential terms . . . by a preponderance of the evidence.'" Hudson v. P.I.P., Inc., No. 18-61877-CIV, 2020 WL 5647009, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 13, 2020) (quoting Schoendorf v. Toyota of Orlando, No. 6:08-cv-767-Orl-19DAB, 2009 WL 1075991, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2009)), report and recommendationadopted, No. 18-61877-CIV, 2020 WL 5647051 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2020). Moreover, a "meeting of the minds of the parties on all essential elements is a prerequisite to the existence of an enforceable contract." De Beers Centenary AG v. Hasson, 751 F. Supp. 2d 1297, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (quoting Bus. Specialists, Inc. v. ...