Stewart Edwin Olmedo, et al. v. Total Recon Solutions, Inc., et al.

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR May 19, 2026 Department S14 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-14) at (909) 521-3495 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

CIVSB2419099 (related to CIVSB CIVSB2414801)

Olmedo v. Total Recon Solutions

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

On this PAGA action, Defendant Total Recon Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed the instant

Motion to Compel Arbitration along with a request to stay the action.

Plaintiff Stewart Edwin Olmedo (“Plaintiff” of “Olmedo”) alleges in his Complaint that Defendant

fails to pay its employees for all minutes worked due to off the clock work, including requiring

employees to remain on-call, complete pre-shift and post-shift tasks before or after clocking in or

out, work through meal periods after clocking out, to don and doff uniforms or safety equipment

off the clock, to attend company meetings off the clock, and to make phone calls or drive off the

clock. Also, Defendant failed to pay at the proper overtime rate because did not include all

required forms of renumeration in their regular rate of pay. Finally, Olmedo alleges that

Defendant rounded the employees time entries or edited or manipulated the time entries to show

less hours than actually worked. (Compl. ¶ 11.)

On November 13, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of related case, relating Stewart Edwin Olmedo,

et al. v. Total Recon Solutions, Inc., et al., San Bernardino Superior Court Case No.

CIVSB2414801, and the Court issued an order finding them related on December 12, 2024.

The Court has fully considered all the moving papers submitted by both sides relative to

Defendant’s motion.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice:

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of his operative Complaint in this

matter (RJN., EXH. A) in support of his opposition. The Court Denies Plaintiff’s request as

unnecessary.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections:

Plaintiff asserts five sets of evidentiary objections to ¶¶ 3-4 and 6-7 of the Declaration of

Kathleen Williams. Plaintiff also asserts six sets of evidentiary objections to ¶¶ 8 and 13-17 of

the Declaration of Jennifer Rivas. The Court Overrules Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections as they

lack merit.

Statement of the Law

Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA authorizes enforcement of arbitration clauses unless

grounds exist in law or equity for the revocation of any contract. (9 U.S.C. § 2.) In situations

governed by the FAA, conflicting state law is preempted. (Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of

Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (1989) 489 U.S. 468, 477.)

Under the FAA, to compel arbitration, a finding must be made that an agreement exists

for arbitration between the parties and that the agreement covers the dispute. (AT&T

Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648-649.) The

enforcement of an arbitration clause is a matter of ordinary state-law contract principles and

should be enforced according to its terms. (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S.

333, 339.) Thus, arbitration agreements can be declared unenforceable on contract defenses of

Therefore, as an arbitration contract exists that provides for the arbitrability issue to be

determined by the arbitrator, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration subject to the

arbitrator determining the gateway issue of the enforceability and defenses to the Agreement,

including whether it is unconscionable, and whether non-signatories, may rely on it to also

compel Plaintiff to arbitration. Hence, the Court STAYS this litigation in its entirety.

RULING

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court rules as follows:

(1) GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration subject to the arbitrator

determining the gateway issue of the enforceability and defenses to the

Agreement, including whether it is unconscionable, and whether non-signatories,

may rely on it to also compel Plaintiff to arbitration.

(2) STAYS case no. CIVSB2419099 and case no. CIVSB2414801in their entirety.

(3) DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judicial notices as unnecessary.

(4) OVERRULES Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to ¶¶ 3-4 and 6-7 of the Declaration

of Kathleen Williams; and ¶¶ 8 and 13-17 of the Declaration of Jennifer Rivas.

(5) SETS OSC re Status of Arbitration on January 15, 2027, 8:30 am, in Department

S37.

(6) ORDERS counsel for Defendant to give notice of the above ruling and OSC

hearing in January 2027.