Navarrete v. Poly-West Inc

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 22 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [33] GINA GARCIA NAVARETTE, ) 44 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:18-cv-01805-GMN-NJK [55] vs. ) 66 ) ORDER POLY-WEST, INC., ) 77 ) Defendants. ) [88] 99 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel Arbitration, (ECF No. 56), filed by 1100 Defendant Poly-West (“Defendant”). Plaintiff Gina Garcia Navarette (“Plaintiff”) filed a 1111 Response, (ECF No. 60), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 64). For the reasons 1122 discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. 1133 I. BACKGROUND 1144 Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a “packer” in December 2014. (First. Am. 1155 Compl. (“FAC”) ¶ 17, ECF No. 15). Beginning in November 2016 and on, Plaintiff was 1166 allegedly harassed by her fellow employees and supervisors. (Id. ¶¶ 17,18). The alleged 1177 harassment focused on Plaintiff’s identity as a transgender woman and she was “criticized for 1188 her work performance due to her identity and not because of any legitimate business reason.” 1199 (Id. ¶ 18). According to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to promote her from “packer” to “machine 2200 operator” and neglected to provide Plaintiff with a pay raise even though other “packers” who 2211 began working after Plaintiff were provided with raises. (Id. ¶ 19). In February 2017, 2222 Plaintiff’s supervisor allegedly disciplined her for emailing Human Resources about her work 2233 situation. (Id. ¶ 20). 2244 On September 18, 2018, Plaintiff commenced this case by filing her Complaint, which 2255 she amended on April 12, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conduct violated Title VII of Page 1 of 5 11 the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Nevada’s anti-discrimination statutes. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 16–30). On 22 February 4, 2020, Defendant moved to compel arbitration of all of Plaintiff’s claims. (Mot. 33 Compel, ECF No. 56). The basis for compelling arbitration purportedly arises from two 44 agreements that Plaintiff signed with Defendant in 2016 and 2017, as a condition of 55 employment. (Id. 1:26–28). The relevant portion of the purported agreements state, [66] Any and all Claims, complaints, disputes, demands, and causes of action (hereafter 77 collectively “Claims”) the Employee presently has or may have in the future, against Company . . . shall be submitted to mandatory arbitration, pursuant to this Agreement. 88 This applies to, but is not limited to…alleging violation(s) of any federal statute, including, but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the 1964 [99] Civil Rights Act (as amended) . . . alleging violation(s) of any state statute, including, 1100 but not limited to, any anti-discrimination statute . . . . 1111 (Employee Handbook, Ex. A to Mot. Compel, ECF No. 56-1). 1122 II. LEGAL STANDARD 1133 Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that: 1144 A written provision in … a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction … [1155] shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. [1166] 1177 9. U.S.C. § 2. “In enacting § 2 of the [FAA], Congress declared a national policy favoring 1188 arbitration and withdrew the power of the states to require a judicial forum for the resolution of 1199 claims which the contracting parties agreed to resolve by arbitration.” Southland Corp. v. 2200 Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 10 (1984). Courts place arbitration agreements “upon the same footing as 2211 other contracts.” Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. Of Leland Sandford Junior Univ., 489 2222 U.S. 468 , 478 (1989). 2233 Under the FAA, parties to an arbitration agreement may seek an order from the Court to 2244 compel arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 4 . The FAA “leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a 2255 district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to Page 2 of 5 11 arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” Dean Witter 22 Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985). Thus, the Court’s “role under the [FAA] is … 33 limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) 44 whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” Lee v. Intelius, Inc., 737 F.3d 1254 , 55 1261 (9th Cir. 2013). The party seeking to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving the 66 existence of a valid arbitration agreement by [a] preponderance of the evidence.” Bridge Fund 77 Capital Corp. v. Fastbucks Franchise Corp., 622 F.3d 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010). If a district 88 court decides that an arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable, then it should either stay or 99 dismiss the claims subject to arbitration. Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257 , 1276– 1100 77 (9th Cir. 2006). 1111 III. DISCUSSION 1122 The Court’s role begins with the threshold issue of determining whether an arbitration 1133 agreement exists between Plaintiff and Defendant. Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. 1144 Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1991). Because an agreement to arbitrate is a 1155 matter of contract, Nevada law governs this dispute over arbitrability. First Options of Chicago, 1166 Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995) (explaining that, “generally . . . [courts] apply 1177 ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.”). Defendant, moreover, 1188 bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a valid agreement exists 1199 between it and Plaintiff. Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc., 944 F.3d 1212 , 1219 (9th Cir. 2019); 2200 Obstetrics & Gynecologists Willian G. Wixted, M.D., et. Al. v. Pepper, 693 P.2d 1259 , 1260 2211 (Nev. 1985); see also Nev. Rev. Stat. 38.219(2). Relatedly, when considering this motion to 2222 compel arbitration which is opposed on the ground that no agreement to arbitrate had been 2233 made between the parties, the Court gives Plaintiff “the benefit of all reasonable doubts and 2244 inferences that may arise.” Mwithiga v. Uber Techs., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 3d 1052, 1059 (D. Nev. 2255 2019). Page 3 of 5 11 Here, Defendant moves to compel arbitration of this dispute on the basis that Plaintiff 22 executed arbitration agreements in 2016 and 2017 as a condition of her employment. 33 Defendant contends that these agreements encompass all of Plaintiff’s claims as alleged in the 44 First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 15). (Mot. Compel 4:3–5:10). Plaintiff, by contrast, 55 claims that Defendant has not authenticated Plaintiff’s signature on the two arbitration 66 agreements and, therefore, cannot have this Court enforce them. (Resp. 2:10–11, ECF. No. 60) 77 (contending that Defendant has not followed the appropriate authentication procedures for the 88 Court to recognize the agreements and compel arbitration). However, Plaintiff does not 99 explicitly claim that the signatures on Defendant’s proffered arbitration agreements are not 1100 hers. 1111 Addressing first Plaintiff’s authentication argument, Defendant must present the Court 1122 with evidence “sufficient to support a finding that the item is what [Defendant] claims it is.” 1133 Ortiz v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1070, 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2014). The question 1144 of whether Defendant has sufficiently proven authenticity to justify admission into evidence 1155 “rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Id. And in exercising that discretion here, the 1166 Court finds that Defendant has provided sufficient evidence to authenticate the arbitration 1177 agreements through references to deposition testimony and signature comparisons. 1188 Specifically, Plaintiff admits in her deposition that she previously signed arbitration agreements 1199 with Defendant, and Plaintiff never contested the authenticity of her signatures on the 2016 and 2200 2017 agreements containing the at-issue arbitration provisions. (See Resp. 4:24–5:9) (arguing 2211 that, at one point later on, Plaintiff refused to sign “an arbitration agreement”) (emphasis 2222 added). Defendant also provided multiple documents to compare and prove Plaintiff’s 2233 signatures on the 2016 and 2017 documents agreeing to arbitration. Thus, Defendant has 2244 proven by a preponderance of the evidence that valid, written arbitration agreements exist 2255 between Defendant and Plaintiff. Page 4 of 5 11 Because the Court denies Plaintiff’s authentication objection, the Court moves to the 22 next step in the analysis of determining if either of the arbitration agreements encompass 33 Plaintiff’s claims. The Court finds that they do. The arbitration agreements expressly cover 44 claims such as those asserted in this case arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state 55 law discrimination claims. (Employee Handbook, Ex. A to Mot. Compel, ECF No. 56-1). 66 Further, the agreements require arbitration for causes of action that Plaintiff had against 77 Defendant at the time of the agreements and “in the future.” (Id.). Accordingly, Defendant’s 88 Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted, and Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice. 99 See Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., 864 F.2d 635 , 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining a court has 1100 the authority to dismiss an action when all claims are subject to arbitration). 1111 IV. CONCLUSION 1122 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, (ECF No. 1133 56), is GRANTED. 1144 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 1155 DATED this _2__7__ day of May, 2020. [1166] 1177 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge [1188] United States District Court [2255] Page 5 of 5