ALMENDARES VS GUY YOCOM CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Verified responses, without objection, are Ordered within 15 days.

Defendant Harindarpal Gill and his attorney of record are sanctioned in the sum of $750, payable to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days.

7. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME ALMENDARES VS GUY MOTION TO COMPEL CVRI2506853 YOCOM ARBITRATION CONSTRUCTION, INC. Tentative Ruling:

GRANT the Motion to Compel Arbitration.

STAY the action.

Matter is set for a Status Hearing on July 21, 2027, at 8:30am, D-4.

The court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which covers the claims asserted in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Both Plaintiffs were members of the Carpenters Union and hence are bound by the terms of the CBA. The CBA contains a clear and unmistakable waiver of the members’ right to litigate any statutory claims in a judicial forum. Moreover, the validity of the CBA does not depend on whether Plaintiffs assented to the terms, and contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention that the CBA has not been properly authenticated, the declaration of Greg Wilson with the attached true and correct copy of the CBA is sufficient.

Even if the copy does not contain the parties’ signatures, “the writing memorializing an arbitration agreement need not be signed by both parties in order to be upheld as a binding arbitration agreement.” (Serafin v. Balco Props. Ltd., LLC. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 165, 176.)

In addition, Plaintiffs have not shown procedural or substantive unconscionability. First, the doctrine of adhesion does not apply where there is a collective bargaining agreement in place. Plaintiffs provide no evidence that the union was not given an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the arbitration provisions. Second, the absence of a clause requiring a written award in the CBA does not render the CBA substantively unconscionable because such a requirement is already set forth under the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”). Third, silence in the arbitration agreement regarding costs is not a ground for denying a motion to compel arbitration. (Little v. Auto Stigler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064.) Fourth, Plaintiffs cite to no specific provision in the arbitration clause which imposes on Plaintiffs a pre-arbitration disclosure requirement of their claims.