Dominguez v. Sonesta Int'l Hotels Corp.

648 F.Supp.3d 1162

Bertha DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. SONESTA INTERNATIONAL HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendant.

Case No. 22-cv-03027-JCS

United States District Court, N.D. California

Signed January 3, 2023

Marcus Bradley, Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Lirit Ariella King, Bradley Grombacher, LLP, Westlake Village, CA, Sahag Majarian, II, Majarian Law Group APC, Tarzana, CA, for Plaintiff.

Kevin Ha, Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi, Jackson Lewis P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Re: Dkt. No. 24

JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In this putative class action, Plaintiff Bertha Dominguez asserts various wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code, including a claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), against her former employer, Sonesta International Hotels Corporation ("Sonesta"). Presently before the Court is Sonesta's Motion to Compel Arbitration ("Motion"). The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for determination without oral argument and therefore vacates the motion hearing set for January 6, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The Case Management Conference set for the same date will be held at 2:00 p.m. instead of 9:30 a.m. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.¹

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that she worked for Sonesta as a housekeeper/housekeeper supervisor at Sonesta ES Suites San Francisco Airport from approximately November 2020 through January 7, 2022. First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 11. She does not dispute that as part of the onboarding process for that job, she signed an arbitration agreement entitled "Mutual Agreement to Resolve Disputes and Arbitrate Claims" ("Arbitration Agreement"). See Declaration of Jennifer Rausch in Support of Defendant Sonesta International Hotels Corporation's Motion to Compel Arbitration ("Rausch Decl.") ¶16 & Ex. B (Arbitration Agreement); Opposition at 3 ("Here, Defendant requires aggrieved employees who are new hires to open and digitally sign a 'Mutual Agreement to Resolve Disputes and Arbitrate Claims' . . . as part of the onboarding process.") (citing Rausch Decl. ¶ 13).

Under the Arbitration Agreement, Plaintiff and Sonesta agreed to submit all employment-related disputes to arbitration. In particular, the agreement states as follows:

You and the Company are required to follow the grievance process set forth in Section II(A) below and then, if necessary, the arbitration process set forth in Section II(B) below with respect to any claims, including any claims that could be brought in a court.

For purposes of this Agreement, the term "claims" means any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of your employment or the termination of your employment which could be brought in a court, including, but not limited to, claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Section 1981 through 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code; state and local anti-discrimination laws; and any other federal, state, or local law, ordinance or regulation, and claims based on any public policy, contract, tort, or common law and any claim for costs, fees, and other expenses or relief, including attorney's fees. Claims subject to this Agreement shall not include: (i) claims relating to workers' compensation benefits; (ii) unemployment compensation benefits; (iii) claims with respect to any stock plan, employee pension or welfare benefit plan if that plan contains some form of specific grievance or other procedure for the resolution of disputes under the plan; (iv) claims filed with a federal, state, or local administrative agency (e.g., the NLRB, EEOC, etc.) or reporting of criminal activity to appropriate public authorities; and (v) claims covered by a written employment contract signed by both parties which provides for a specific, different form of dispute resolution in accordance with that contract's terms.

Rausch Decl., Ex. B (Arbitration Agreement) § I. The Arbitration Agreement designates National Arbitration and Mediation, Inc. ("NAM") to arbitrate all disputes under the Agreement and provides that "the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with [NAM's] then current rules for the resolution of employment disputes[,]" which are available to employees upon request to the Human Resources Department. Id. § II(B)(i) & (ii).

The Arbitration Agreement provides that Sonesta will pay "100% of the Arbitration Firm's fees as well as the arbitrator's fees and Expenses[,]" and "100% of any filing fees that the Arbitration Firm may charge to initiate arbitration." Id. § II(B)(iv). "Each party [must] otherwise bear its own costs and fees associated with the arbitration including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and the costs and fees of responding to discovery requests." Id. The Arbitration Agreement further provides that "the arbitration will be held at a mutually convenient time and place within 50 miles of the [Sonesta] location at which [the employee] most recently [is or was] working." Id. § II(B)(v).

The Arbitration Agreement also includes a class action waiver, contained in a separate section entitled "Class/Collective Action Waiver." Id. § III(H.). That section provides that the parties "agree to waive all rights to bring, or be a party to, any class or collective claims against one another and agree to pursue claims on an individual basis only." Id. § III(A). In addition, above the signature line, the Arbitration Agreement states, in bold and all capital letters:

By your signature below, you acknowledge receipt of this dispute resolution and arbitration agreement. You also acknowledge that this agreement is a legal document which, among other things, requires you to grieve, and then to arbitrate, all claims you may have now or in the future with the company, which otherwise could have been brought in court. YOU ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT BY RECEIPT OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE COMPANY HAS INFORMED YOU THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF THIS AGREEMENT . . .

BY SIGNING BELOW YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR RIGHTS TO INITIATE OR PARTICIPATE IN CLASS ACTIONS AFFECTING YOUR EMPLOYMENT BY THE COMPANY

Id. § III(H).

Under the Arbitration Agreement, "[t]he Parties acknowledge and agree that the Company is involved in transactions involving interstate commerce and that the Federal Arbitration Act shall govern any arbitration pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to the Agreement's scope, interpretation and application." Id. § III(F). The Arbitration Agreement also includes a clause that permits the deletion of any unenforceable provision as follows:

In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be construed to be unlawful or unenforceable, and if the offending provision can be deleted without affecting the primary intention of the parties or can be reformed to effect the primary intention of the parties as expressed herein, then the offending provision shall be so deleted or reformed and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as written.

Id. § III(C).

Along with the Arbitration Agreement, Plaintiff also received a document entitled "Important Notice Regarding Your Employment With Sonesta International Hotels Corporation" ("Notice"). Rausch Decl., Ex. B; Opposition at 3 ("[O]ne of the documents Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees received is entitled "Important Notice Regarding Your Employment With Sonesta International Hotels Corporation[.]"). The Notice states that employees are "required to agree to participate in Sonesta's dispute resolution and arbitration process" as a "condition of [their] employment" and that "[b]ecause participation in the dispute resolution and arbitration process is one of the conditions of [their] employment with Sonesta, if [they] decide not to agree to the terms of the Agreement, Sonesta will consider [their] employment application to be withdrawn." Rausch Decl., Ex. B.

In the Motion, Sonesta argues that "Plaintiff's claims fall squarely within the scope of her binding and enforceable agreement to arbitrate" and therefore, that the Court should compel arbitration of those claims on an individual basis and dismiss all class and representative claims without prejudice. Motion at 11. In support of this assertion, Sonesta argues that the Arbitration Agreement is governed by the FAA, which requires that the agreement be enforced so long as there is a valid agreement to arbitrate the dispute, and that that requirement has been satisfied. Id. at 14. In particular, Sonesta asserts, "the evidence plainly demonstrates that Plaintiff 'knowingly, voluntarily and freely agree[d] to accept and be bound by the terms of this Agreement' after acknowledging she 'had sufficient time to read and understand [its terms].' " Id. (citing Rausch Decl. ¶ 16 & Arbitration Agreement § III(H)). In addition, it asserts, it is "indisputable the Agreement encompasses all of Plaintiff's claims asserted in the Complaint, as it expressly applies to 'any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of your employment or the termination of your employment which could be brought in a court.' " Id. (citing Rausch Decl. ¶ 6 & Arbitration Agreement § I.) Sonesta further asserts that the class action waiver is enforceable and that under the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Viking River, Inc. v. Moriana, — U.S. —, 142 S.Ct. 1906, 213 L.Ed.2d 179 (2022), Plaintiff's individual PAGA claims must be arbitrated while her representative claims must be dismissed. Id. at 17-19.

Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that the Arbitration...