Godwin vs. American Blast Systems, Inc.

104 Godwin vs. American Blast Systems, Inc., 26-01553297

The unopposed application of attorney Nicholas Lee to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendants American Blast Systems, Inc. and American Blast System Payments LLC is GRANTED.

Moving attorney met the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.

Moving attorney to give notice. 105 Phelps vs. Hyundai Motor America, 25-01468078

Off-calendar. 106 Knight vs. Volt Management Corp, 24-01382559

Motion to Compel Arbitration Defendant Volt Management Corp.’s (“Volt”) motion to compel arbitration of all of Plaintiff Yolanda Knight’s claims and to stay the action is DENIED.

Agreement to Arbitrate Here, it is undisputed that on August 6, 2021, as part of the onboarding process for her employment with Volt, Plaintiff executed the acknowledgment page of Volt’s Employee Guide containing an Arbitration Agreement. (Allen-Garcia Decl. ¶ 9, Ex A.) The Arbitration Agreement provides, in relevant part that:

“any disputes arising out of or related to my employment with and/or termination from Volt, my assignment with any Volt client and/or end of such assignment, including privacy claims shall be settled by final and binding arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. I understand and agree that Volt’s employees/agents, Volt’s clients, and their employees/agents are third-party beneficiaries to this agreement.”

(Id., Ex. A.)

The FAA The FAA states that written arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” (9 U.S.C. § 2.) The United States Supreme Court has described this provision as reflecting both a “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration,” and the “fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of