Ruotolo v. Homegoods, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALERIA RUOTOLO, an individual, Case No.: 3:21-cv-01495-AJB-LL 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO COMPEL v. ARBITRATION 14 HOMEGOODS, INC., a Delaware 15 (Doc. No. 2) Corporation; THE TJX COMPANIES, 16 INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 Before the Court is HomeGoods, Inc. and the TJX Companies, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) 21 motion to compel arbitration in Valeria Ruotolo’s (“Plaintiff”) civil action for alleged labor 22 and employment violations. (Doc. No. 2.) The Court set a briefing schedule for the motion, 23 directing that any opposition be filed by September 13, 2021. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff did 24 not file an opposition or otherwise respond to Defendants’ motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 25 7.1(d)(1), the Court deems this matter suitable for determination without oral argument and 26 hereby VACATES the motion hearing date scheduled for October 7, 2021. For the reasons 27 set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This case concerns Plaintiff’s allegations that throughout her employment with 3 Defendants, Defendants denied her protections and benefits under the California Labor 4 Code. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants are liable for: (1) meal and rest period 5 violations, (2) minimum wage violations, (3) overtime violations, (4) wage statement 6 violations, (5) failure to reimburse for business expenses, (6) failure to pay wages upon 7 separation, and (7) Business and Professions Code § 17200 violations. Plaintiff filed her 8 Complaint in San Diego Superior Court on May 28, 2021. Defendants subsequently 9 removed the case to this Court and filed a motion to compel arbitration of the dispute. This 10 Order follows. 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) governs the enforcement of arbitration 13 agreements involving interstate commerce. See 9 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to § 2 of the FAA, 14 an arbitration agreement is “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds 15 as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Id. The FAA permits “[a] 16 party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a 17 written agreement for arbitration [to] petition any United States district court . . . for an 18 order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in [the] 19 agreement.” Id. § 4. 20 Given the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration, the FAA “mandates that district 21 courts shall direct parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration 22 agreement has been signed.” Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985). 23 Thus, in a motion to compel arbitration, the district court’s role is limited to determining 24 “(1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement 25 encompasses the dispute at issue.” Kilgore v. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 673 F.3d 947, 955–56 26 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 27 (9th Cir. 2000)). If these factors are met, the court must enforce the arbitration agreement 28 in accordance with its precise terms. Id. I Ht. DISCUSSION 2 Defendants contend that at the time of her hire Plaintiff entered into a valid 3 || arbitration agreement, which requires her to arbitrate “any dispute, past, present or future, 4 || arising out of or related to [Plaintiff's] employment with The TJX Companies, Inc. or one 5 || of its affiliates, successors, subsidiaries or parent companies . . . regardless of its date of 6 ||accrual and survives after the employment relationship terminates.” (Doc. No. 2-2 at 6.)! 7 || Defendants argue that because Plaintiff's wage and hour claims arise from her employment 8 || with them, her claims are covered by the arbitration agreement to which she is bound. 9 || Plaintiff did not file an opposition brief. And the record indicates that she does not oppose 10 motion. (Doc. No. 4 at 2 (“Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ Motion to Compel 11 || Arbitration, and has indicated to Defense counsel that Plaintiff does not intend to do so.”’).) 12 || Therefore, no issue as to the validity or enforceability of the agreement has been raised. 13 ||Accordingly, the Court finds the arbitration agreement “valid, irrevocable, and 14 || enforceable,” requiring Plaintiff to submit her claims to arbitration in accordance with the 15 |/terms of the agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 2; Kilgore, 673 F.3d at 955—56. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel 18 arbitration. (Doc. No. 2.) Moreover, pursuant to the FAA, the Court STAYS the judicial 19 || proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 3. The parties are 20 |} ORDERED to file a joint status report with this Court, detailing the progress of the 21 || arbitration within 180 days of the date of this Order. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to 22 || vacate the motion hearing date scheduled for October 7, 2021. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: October 4, 2021 © ¢ 25 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 26 United States District Judge 27 28 | The pinpoint page citations refer to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of each filing.