BETHKE VS IRWIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.

4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME BETHKE VS IRWIN MOTION TO COMPEL

INTERNATIONAL, INC. ARBITRATION Tentative Ruling: Appearances requested to discuss evidence submitted with reply papers and what opportunity plaintiff should have to respond to it if it is received.

5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE COPO VS CLIMATE PLEADINGS ON OR IN THE CVRI2506675 PROS, LLC ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Tentative Ruling: Defendant Climate Pros moves for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative to compel arbitration. The motion is based on the argument that a collective bargaining agreement preempts plaintiff Noel Copo’s wage and hour claims and that any claims not preempted must be arbitrated on an individual basis under the CBA. CP moves to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice. Alternatively, it asks the Court to compel arbitration pursuant to the federal Labor Management Relations Act, 29 USC § 173(d), 185, and the Federal Arbitration Act, or under CCP § 1281.2, if the Court were to find that the LMRA and FAA do not apply. CP argues that if any PAGA claim is not preempted, it should be stayed.

Copo argues that preemption under the LMRA is narrow and is an affirmative defense and not something that can be established by a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Nor are the arguments of failure to exhaust the CBA’s grievance and arbitration procedures and other defenses apparent on the face of the complaint. Finally, Copo argues that a request to compel arbitration is not proper under CCP ¶ 438, which applies to motions for judgment on the pleadings.

Appearances requested concerning the RJN of the CBA. Grant the remainder of the RJN.

Copo does not bring any claims based directly on the CBA, for violation of the CBA, or any rights created by the CBA and none of the claims are dependent on an analysis of the CBA. Instead, CP asks the court to adjudicate the case based on an affirmative defense based on the CBA, but there is no authority that would require (or permit) the Court to do so.

Deny the alternative motion to compel; there does not appear to be statutory authority to combine a petition to compel arbitration with a motion for judgment on the pleadings.