Hernandez v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 21, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01447
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 FILED

wots Baim SRIFORNA 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WALLY HERNANDEZ, an individual, Case No.: 3:21-cv-1447-BEN-KSC ) 2 rimit,_-) ORDERGRANTING INFART 13 || v. ) ENTIRE ACTION TO 14|) DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a y ARBITRATION 15 || California corporation; and DOES 1-25, ) 16 Defendant. [ECF No. 8] INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff WALLY HERNANDEZ, an individual (‘Plaintiff’), brings this action against Defendant DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a California corporation 20 || (“Defendant”) seeking relief arising out of Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. ECF 1 at 2, § 2. Before the Court is the Stipulation to Submit the Entire Action to 22 || Arbitration (the “Joint Motion”). ECF No. 8. After considering the papers submitted, 23 || supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Joint 24 || Motion. BACKGROUND 26 A. Statement of Facts 27 Plaintiff alleges that he began his employment with Defendant around November 28 || 2015, as a part-time stocker and retail associate at Defendant’s retail store in Encinitas, Us

California. ECF No. 1-2 at 4,'9 15. In February 2016, Defendant promoted Plaintiff to a part-time Assistant Manager. Id. at 4, 9 16. In September 2018, Defendant again promoted Plaintiff to a full-time Assistant Manager. /d. at 4,917. Plaintiff alleges that once the COVID-19 pandemic began, Defendant did not enforce the mask mandate, and on October 15, 2020, Defendant terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for his speaking up about Defendant not requiring its customers to comply with the mask mandate. /d. at 5- qq 22-30. B. Procedural History On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2021-000283 19-CU-OE- CTL, alleging three causes of action for (1) wrongful discharge in violation of public 12 nolicy, CAL. LAB. CODE §§ 6400 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 8, §§ v3380, 5141; (2) retaliation, CAL. LAB. CODE § 1102.5; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. 14 No. 1 at 2, 9 1-2; see also Complaint, ECF No. 1-2. On August 10, 2021, Defendant timely filed an Answer. ECF No. 1-2 at 21-25. On August 13, 2021, Defendant timely removed the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, i ECF No. 1 at 2, and filed its Answer in federal court, see ECF No. 2. 8 On September 10, 2021, the parties filed the instant stipulation. ECF No. 6. Il. LEGAL STANDARD a Where a plaintiff files suit “in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for... arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue .. . is referable to arbitration . □□ shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration.” 9 U.S.C. § 3. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds that exist 2 27 Unless otherwise indicated, all page number references are to the ECF-generated 28 ||page number contained in the header of each ECF-filed document.

LDL

at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “Once the court has determined that an arbitration agreement relates to a transaction involving interstate commerce, thereby falling under the FAA, the court’s only role is to determine [1] whether 4 a valid arbitration agreement exists and [2] whether the scope of the dispute falls within that agreement.” Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., No. C 04-00281 JSW, 2005 WL 2894628, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2005) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)). DISCUSSION 2 The Parties seek a Court Order approving the Parties’ Stipulation to Submit the Case to Arbitration. ECF No. 6. The Parties indicate that during his employment, Plaintiff signed a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims. /d. at 2:9-13. The parties ask 2 the Court to retain jurisdiction of the case to enforce the Stipulation to Arbitrate; enforce any arbitration award; and “perform any other roles as permitted by the Federal Arbitration Act.” Jd. at 2:17-20, 3:1-6. “[A] district court may either stay the action or dismiss it outright when □ □ . the 1g court determines that all of the claims raised in the action are subject to arbitration.” folmmohammadi . Bloomingdales. Ine, 755 Bad 1072, Lo7av7t Git Cin, 2014) see is also Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638, 641 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of one the plaintiff's claims because the parties agreed to submit those claims to arbitration, and no nonarbitrable claims remained in the case); Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) a (holding that the district properly dismissed the claims “[a]lthough the Federal Arbitration 2 Act ‘provides for a stay pending compliance with a contractual arbitration clause... □ request for a stay is not mandatory’”); Gadomski v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 281 F. Supp. = 3d 1015, 1020-21 (E.D. Cal. 2018) (holding that “because both claims are to be arbitrated, a8 the Court dismisses Plaintiffs claims in favor of arbitration”); Olsavsky v. Prestige i Healthcare, No. 4:14CV510, 2014 WL 1333670, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 1, 2014) Ze (granting, in part, a joint motion to stay a case pending arbitration but ordering dismissal =a

of the case in its entirety because “all of the parties’ claims are subject binding arbitration and there is nothing left before this Court except to execute judgment”). Because the Parties indicate all claims will be arbitrated and do not raise any non- arbitrable claims, the Court finds that all claims are subject to binding arbitration, so there is nothing left before this Court to do except to enforce any judgment. Thus, the Court DENIES the parties’ request for a stay, GRANTS their request to arbitrate, and dismisses this case without prejudice. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Stipulation as follows: l. The parties shall submit Plaintiff's claims to final and binding arbitration pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement referenced in the parties’ Stipulation. 2. The instant action, and all proceedings herein, are dismissed without 13 prejudice. 3. All remaining deadlines and dates set forth in this matter are hereby vacated. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to clos¢ this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ah '7)| DATED: September 20, 2021 18 -ROG . BENITEZ 19 nited States’ District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-