WILLIE UY VS. INTERSECT ENT, INC.

September 11, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 5 26-CIV-03853 WILLIE UY VS. INTERSECT ENT, INC.

WILLIE UY JOSHUA S FALAKASSA INTERSECT ENT, INC. CHERYL D. ORR

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Intersect ENT, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Willie Uy (“Plaintiff’) brings this action arising out of his former employment with Defendant. The Complaint alleges ten causes of action for discrimination, wrongful termination and other causes of action. Defendant seek to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant as part of Plaintiff’s employment.

A court shall order the parties to arbitrate a controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that certain exceptions exist. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence. (Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 747, 754.) If the opposing party then raises a defense to enforcement, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence as to any fact necessary to that defense by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ibid.)

If the opposing party meets the burden of producing sufficient evidence, the third step requires the party seeking arbitration to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties formed a valid contract to arbitrate their dispute. (Ramirez v. Golden Queen Mining Company, LLC (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 821, 830.)

Defendant meets its burden of showing that an agreement to arbitration Plaintiff’s claims exists. This initial burden may be met by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement purportedly bearing the opposing party’s signature. (Iyere, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 755, citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.) Defendant provides a copy of the arbitration agreement signed by Plaintiff. (Zacharias Decl., Exh. A.) The arbitration agreement is entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant and provides for arbitration of all claims or controversies between the parties, including discrimination, termination and claims for violation of any federal, state, or other governmental law, statute, regulation, or ordinance. (Ibid.) Thus, Defendant shows the arbitration agreement encompasses the claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

September 11, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ Since Defendant shows an agreement to arbitrate exists, Plaintiff then bears the burden of raising a defense to enforcement of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion and therefore fails to raise such a defense. As a result, the court finds it does not need to address Defendant’s remaining arguments.

Plaintiff and Defendant are hereby ORDERED to arbitrate the claims in the Complaint pursuant to the arbitration agreement.

Although the court usually stays the court action upon ordering an action to arbitration, Defendant unusually did not move to stay this action as part of this Motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4 [“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”].) If parties appear they can orally move or stipulate to a stay of this case.

In the alternative, the Court has the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency. (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484. The Court thus will stay this case pending arbitration completion or until further Order of the Court. As such, the Case Management Conference scheduled for November 23, 2026 is continued to November 22, 2027 at 9:00 a.m., still before the Civil Commissioner / Courtroom H, on for status of arbitration.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.