Motion to Compel Arbitration
Michael Silva v. Andrew Gibson, et al., 25CV-0483
Hearing: Motion to Compel Arbitration
Date: May 21, 2026
Michael Silva (Plaintiff) filed this class action for violations of wage and hour laws against his employer Empirical Systems Aerospace, Inc. and its owners and managers, Andrew Gibson and Benjamin Schiltgen (collectively Defendants). Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The motion was properly served and no opposition has been filed.
The motion is based on an Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement (Agreement) electronically signed by Plaintiff on March 4, 2021. (Declaration of Beth Golightly (Golightly Dec.), Exh. B.) The Agreement states that disputes “shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration Act (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. sec 1280 et seq., including section 1283.05 and all of the Act’s other mandatory and permissive rights to discovery).” (Id.)
1. Agreement to Arbitrate and Applicability of FAA
Defendants argue, “arbitration of this dispute against all Defendants is required under the FAA.” (Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Ps&As), p. 9, lns. 12-13.) Defendants cite Aviation Data, Inc. v. Am. Express Travel Related Serv. Co., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1534-35, as holding that the FAA takes precedence where the agreement is governed by the FAA, despite being substantively governed by state law. (Ps&As, p. 9, lns. 13-16.) However, that holding is distinguishable both because of the language used in the agreement and the issue to be determined, i.e., whether a party waived its right to arbitrate, which are not present in this case.
Here, the Agreement does not reference California law generally, but states disputes must be submitted and determined “in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration Act.” Code of Civil Procedure sections 1280 et seq. (CAA), provides substantive procedures for determining whether the parties entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement and the scope of the agreement. Thus, the Agreement is ambiguous as to whether it is governed by the FAA or the CAA.
Defendants assert that the FAA applies because Empirical Systems Aerospace, Inc. “provides engineering, manufacturing, and testing of military and commercial air vehicles.” (Ps&As, p. 9, lns. 10-12.) However, the services described could be performed and provided locally. Defendants assert no other evidence showing that Plaintiff’s work involved or was for an employer engaged in interstate commerce.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
However, “the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is answered by applying state contract law even when it is alleged that the agreement is covered by the FAA.” (Cheng-Canindin v. Renaissance Hotel Associates (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 676, 683.) Further, both the FAA and California law favor arbitration. (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 339; OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125.) The Court considers two factors in determining a motion to compel arbitration: (1) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; and (2) if so, whether the agreement encompasses the asserted claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130; Bruni v. Didion (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1283.)
Defendants provide ample evidence that Plaintiff entered into an arbitration agreement with Defendants. (Golightly Dec., ¶ 2; Exhs. A, B. C.) The agreement covers “all disputes that may arise out of or be related in any way to my employment and/or any other relationship with Company.” (Golightly Dec., Exh. B, ¶ 1.)
Defendants have met their burden of establishing the factors for enforcing the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff offers no basis for denying the motion.
II. Request for Dismissal or Stay of Representative PAGA Claims
Defendant requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims arguing that an individual employee loses standing to bring representative PAGA claims if his individual PAGA claims are arbitrated. (Ps&As, p. 13, ln. 17-p. 14, ln. 13.) However, the California Supreme Court held in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, “where a plaintiff has filed a PAGA action comprised of individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing to litigate non-individual claims in court.” (Id. at 1123.)
The court reasoned that where the “aggrieved employee” standard is met, PAGA standing “is not affected by enforcement of an agreement to adjudicate a plaintiff’s individual claim in another forum,” as this “does not nullify the fact of the violation or extinguish the plaintiff’s status as an aggrieved employee.” (Id. at 1121; see also, LaCour v. Marshalls of CA, LLC (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 505 [PAGA waiver unenforceable].)
Where, as here, only the non-individual PAGA claim must be arbitrated, the Court has discretion to determine whether to stay the non-individual PAGA claims. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 1281.4; Jarboe v. Hanlees Auto Group (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 539, 556 [citations omitted].) The Court finds that staying the non-individual PAGA claims pending the outcome of arbitration is appropriate.
IV. Ruling
The Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. The motion to stay proceedings on the representative PAGA claims is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration.
2