OVRAHIM, NARMELIN vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

fact, involves interstate commerce." (Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1286.) Defendant attests, through the Declaration of Kristi Imfeld, that it receives materials from outside of California, creates goods, and then sells and ships to customers outside of California and other parts of the world. (Imfeld Declaration, ¶ 2.) Defendant also attests that Plaintiff Penaloza's duties included performing tasks that allow Defendant to use the materials received from out-of-state suppliers to produce freeze dried goods that are sold and shipped by Defendant to out-of-state customers. (Ibid., ¶ 3.)

Based on the foregoing, the Arbitration Agreement is subject to the FAA. (Nguyen v. Applied Medical Resources Corp. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 232, 246 [holding that "plaintiff's employment with defendant bears on interstate commerce such that it falls within the scope of the FAA" where "[declarant] attested that defendant designs and manufactures surgical products, which it sells and distributes worldwide, and that plaintiff worked on the production line for those products"]).

Defendant submitted an Arbitration Agreement signed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not dispute that the Arbitration Agreement encompasses Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff argues that he does not remember signing the Arbitration Agreement, but does not dispute that he did in fact sign it. Because Defendant has made a showing of a valid agreement to arbitrate and also that the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue, the FAA requires arbitration of Plaintiff's claims. (Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v.

Byrd (1985) 470 U.S. 213, 218 ["By its terms, the Act leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed."]; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.) Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual claims.

Whether the class action waiver in the Arbitration Agreement is enforceable

The Arbitration Agreement contains a class action waiver. Plaintiff does not dispute that such a waiver is enforceable under the FAA. The FAA requires courts to enforce the terms of the arbitration agreements. (Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis (2018) 584 U.S. 497, 510 ["the [FAA] . . . require[es] us to enforce, not override, the terms of the arbitration agreements before us"].) Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's class claims.

Whether the case should be stayed pending arbitration

The Federal Arbitration Act requires that "the court . . ., upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had[.]" (9 U.S.C. § 3.) Because Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to stay the instant action pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-18-003129 - OVRAHIM, NARMELIN vs UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY - Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration on Order Granting Summary Judgment - GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

The Court finds that the majority of Plaintiffs' arguments improperly seek to re-litigate issues previously raised and considered in connection with Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to revisit prior arguments or to correct perceived judicial error. Instead, the court may grant reconsideration only if presented with " 'new or different facts, circumstances, or law.' (Crotty v. Trader (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 765, 770-771.)

A motion for reconsideration, which requires the moving party to offer new or different facts, circumstances, or law that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been previously discovered, will be denied absent a strong showing of diligence.”(Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007), 150 Cal.App.4th 183). A party seeking reconsideration must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.?(Dickson v. Mann (2024) 103 Cal. App. 5th 935, review denied (Oct. 23, 2024).

The Court is confident that Plaintiff's Counsel is no doubt aware of these statements of the law and therefore does not appreciate Plaintiff's Counsel's contribution to judicial inefficiency by rehashing arguments already made in opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in this motion. The court therefore declines to revisit in this motion any claims of judicial error and or misinterpretation or misapplication of the law.

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the deposition testimony of Ms. Ygbuhay or Mr. Wenko constitutes "new or different facts" within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure §1008. The substance of such testimony is cumulative of evidence already before the Court regarding the RMCC database and Defendant's consideration of safety measures. Nor have Plaintiffs shown reasonable diligence in obtaining or presenting such evidence earlier. Plaintiffs' arguments regarding alleged discovery misconduct and evidentiary authentication similarly fail to satisfy the requirements of §1008, and do not warrant reconsideration.

However, the Court finds that Defendant's amended responses to Requests for Admission concerning the timing of fencing installation--indicating that such fencing was installed between August and November 2018--constitute a new fact not previously before the Court in verified form. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that this information was not available to them at the time of the summary judgment proceedings. A verified admission of a fact is not equivalent to circumstantial evidence that may support a conclusion as to the existence of said fact. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.410). Plaintiffs were therefore not in possession of said fact when Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment MSJ was heard. (Film Packages, Inc. v. Brandywine Film Productions, Ltd. (1987), 193 Cal.App.3d 824)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED solely as to this newly presented fact. The Court will reconsider its prior ruling only to the limited extent necessary to evaluate the impact of this fact. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.

Because the Court grants reconsideration solely as to Defendant's amended response to Requests for Admission regarding the timing of fencing installation, and its impact, if any, on any applicable duties of Defendant. The Court will conduct further proceedings limited to the impact of that fact on the prior summary judgment ruling. The Court sets the matter for further hearing on June 17, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 24.

The parties are ordered to submit simultaneous supplemental briefs addressing only the effect of this newly presented fact on the Court's prior ruling. Supplemental briefs shall be filed and served no later than June 1, 2026. Briefs shall not exceed 15 pages. No reply briefs shall be permitted absent further order of the Court. The Court will not consider argument or evidence beyond the limited scope identified herein without prior leave.

CV-23-006729 - LUSBY, KARI vs YOUNG, CARTER - Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five, to Kari Lusby - GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part, without prejudice; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Five, to Kari Lusby - GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part, without prejudice.

a) GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part, without prejudice. "..any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010).

The Court finds that Plaintiff's responses to the Special Interrogatories at issue are non-responsive, incomplete and or evasive. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220. and 2030.300). The Court finds, to the extent that Plaintiffs have put their family assets and income at issue based on their claims of financial hardship, the discovery sought by Defendant herein is relevant to this action.