Free Reply Memorandum - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-02108-JL

Document 27

Filed 06/18/2008

Page 1 of 4

ERICG. YOUNG,ESQ.(SBN190104) LAW OFFICES ERIC G. YOI-TNG OF 2 The Courtvard 141Stony Circle,Suite202 a J Rosao 95401 Santa CA Telephone: .57 707 5.5005 5.5395 4 Facsimile:07.57 7
I
)

6 7 8 9 l0 1l 12 l3

Attorneys for Plaintiff RITA SIGLAIN

UNITEDSTATES DISTRICTCOURT DISTRICTOF CALIF'ORNIA.SANF'RANCISCO DIVISION NORTHERN

RITA SIGLAIN, Plaintiff,

No. JL Case CV-08-2108 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORTOF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ENJOINING ARBITRATION

COMPANY,A TRADERPUBLISHING DOMINION Virginia Partnership; INC.,a Virginia l 5 ENTERPRISES, LANDMARK corporation; NC., a Virginia t 6 COMMLNICATIONS, BESTIMAGE MARKETING, corporation; t 7 lNC., a Califomiacorporation, I4

18 t9 20 2l

Defendants.

Date: July2,2008 Time: 9:30a.m. Courtroom: F Larson, James Judge:The Honorable MagistrateJudge

to COMESNOW, Plaintiff RITA SIGLAIN andsubmits the Courtthis Reply

and of of 22 Memorandum PointsandAuthoritiesin Support Motion for Declaratory Injunctive : 23 ReliefEnjoiningArbitration

24 25 26 27 28

Case 3:08-cv-02108-JL

Document 27

Filed 06/18/2008

Page 2 of 4

I 2
a J

I. A.

LEGAL ARqUMBNT DefendantsCannot Avoid The Fact That the Arbitration Agreement RequiresThe Application Of Virginia Law To This Dispute

that In its Opposition,Defendantconcedes the Arbitration Agreementitself mustbe that the termsof the with Virginia law; however,Defendantargues in interpreted accordance of do ArbitrationAgreement not requirethe application Virginia law to Plaintiff s substantive of reading the page 5, 4,line l6 - page line 4.) Defendant's Opposition, claims.(See, whichthey of is ArbitrationAgreement directlyat oddswith theplain meaning the Agreement, effect. (Martinez to now re-writein their legalargument avoidits unconscionable cannot law v. MasterProtection,I l8 Cal.App. th 107,116(2004)["No existingrule of contract it."] a peflnits a party to resuscitate legally defectivecontractmerelyby offering to change mustbe readingis alsoat oddswith the maximthat contracts (Citations omiued.) Defendant's as interpreted a whole. in states, pertinentpart: 2 Paragraph of theArbitration Agreement Arbitration Procedures.fubilratign shallbe conducted "2. of for the Resolution Emp_loyment in accoffiles (.'A1{+:') in.effectat Oisput.r of the AmericanArbitrationAssociation shallapplythe arbitrator thetimJan ArbitrableClaim is made...The the the law regarding and lan=, iipiicabte substqntiu.p law -of.remedies, of ali-oCation the burdenof proof..." states: T,the "choiceof law" provisionat issue, Paragraph ,,7, &tplicable Law. This ArbitrationAgregryenlisto be governed bv and c-,ififfid-h-accordance withthe lawi of the Commonwealth oiVirginia." (Emphasis added.) to attempts read law.o'Defendant "applioable utilize the phrase provisions Both of these

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 t2 l3 t4 15 t6 l7 l8

t9 20 2l 22

entireagreement.This and 7 23 the termsof paragraph in a vacuumseparate apartfrom the partieso

24 readingviolatesthe maxim that contractualtermsmust be interpretedasa whole. (Peopleex rel.
omitted.) 516, 526)(Citations Cal.App.4th Company,l0T Tobacco 25 LoclEerv. R.J.Reynolds to as 2 26 Whenparagraphs andT arercadtogether a whole,it clearthatthe arbitratoris required

27 28

in ReplyMemorandum Supportof Motion for and Declaratory Injunctive Relief

Case 3:08-cv-02108-JL

Document 27

Filed 06/18/2008

Page 3 of 4

I
J
a J

of applythe law of the Commonwealth Virginia, not the law of the California,to Plaintiffs claims. as The maxim that contractsmust be interpreted a whole alsorequiresthis Court to

what the partiesintended. (R.l to 4 review the AgreementWith RestrictiveCovenants ascertain YoungDeclaration, supra, 107Cal.App.4th 525-526;See, at Tobacco Company, 5 Reynolds of 6 Exhibit "A," Declaration Plaintiff Rita Siglainandits Exhibit *A.") The Arbitration Covenants atpagel, second With Restrictive into is 7 Agreement incorporated the Agreement the Like the ArbitrationAgreement, With Restrictive Covenants. of 8 paragraph, theAgreement of contains o'choice law" provision,which states: a With Restrictive Covenants 9 Agreement

10 l1 12 13 l4 t5 t6 t7 l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

..IX.

GOVERNING LAW AND JURISDICTION

will This Agreement be the validity determined,under lqw o!'theStateinwh.ichI lastwQrA submitto the and for Tritder. I herebyirrevocably unconditionally DistribtCourtor ?rone*ciusive iurisdictionof theUnited States counn inwhich I last woiked.forTrader,andanyappellate-court arisingout of or Fom thesecourts,in anyactionor proceeding relatingto this Agreement." (Emphasis added.) the however, Unlike the "choiceof laf'provision in the ArbitrationAgreement, Covenants With Restrictive "choiceof law" provisionin theAgreement companion its reserved for Californialaw to governthosedisputes which Defendant chooses unmistalwbl! what with right to go to court. Viewing the parties'overallagleements an eyeto ascertaining to it intendedwhen it draftedthis language, is reasonable concludethat Defendant Defendant of the intended law of the Commonwealth Virginia to be the "applicablelad' for the Arbitration clear, couldjust aseasilyhavewritten the same, Agreement.Had it not so intended,Defendant "choiceof law" provisioninto the ArbitrationAgreement.It did not. unmistakable the set For thereasons forth in Plaintiff s movingpapers, "choiceof lad'provision in the public policy. This "choiceof laf' void asagainst shouldbe declared ArbitrationAgreement
in ReplyMemorandum Supportof Motion for and Declaratory InjunctiveRelief

Case 3:08-cv-02108-JL

Document 27

Filed 06/18/2008

Page 4 of 4

I

provisionsupplants Califomia'sstricterlawsprotecting disabled workersandreplaces with a it

weaklawsprotecting workers. disabled 2 forumthathasshockingly
a J

Moreover, presence the o'choice law" provisionin the ArbitrationAgreement the of of shouldbe takeninto accountasyet anotherexampleof the waysin which this Arbitration with Agteementis o'permeated unconscionability." (Armendarizv. Found.Health Psychcare s., 83, Serv 24 Cal.4th 122(2000).) B. Defendant's OppositionFailsEntirely To AddressSignificantSimilarities LimitationsIn This CaseAnd ThoseHeld To Be Between The Discovery In Unconscionable The Fitz Case

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 l3 l4 l5

the from the instantcase Defendants attempt distinguish Fitz case to In its Opposition, was limited to an "impossibility solgly on the groundsthat the arbitratorin the Fitz case thanwasallowedin the partieso whetherto grantmorediscovery in standard" determining page10,lines2l-22.) While it is truethat this wasone (See, Opposition, agreement. arbitration rulesof by factorconsidered the Fitz Court,theCourtalsolookedto the underlying important in its that arbitration appliedinArmendarizversus case.As the Courtnoted,the parties essentially the agreed the rulesof the CaliforniaArbitrationAct, which granted to Armendariz as and rights,remedies procedures Califomia'sDiscoveryAct. (Fitz v. NCR Corp., ll8 same

r6

to the 702,718(2004).)By contrast, litigantsinFitz - just like here- agreed the t 7 Cal.App.4th by 1 8 rulesof the AAA, with furtherlimiting language the employer. l9 of the As Plaintiff notedin her movingpapers, significance this point is thatthe rulesof

the to 20 the AAA - unlike the CAA - aredesigned balance needfor discoveryagainstthe

2l

evenif at natureof arbitration.(Fitz, supra,118Cal.App.4th 718,fu. 3.) Therefore, expedited

22 the Arbitration Agreementpermitsthe arbitratorto allow additionaldiscovery,asDefendants
to by that 23 contend, arbitratorwill be constrained rulesthat are,by their very nature,designed disadvantage the ratherthanpermitit. This places Plaintiff at a severe 24 limit discovery o'because

to relevant an employment manyof the documents has already in its possession 25 the employer

26 27 28
in Reply Memorandum Supportof Motion for and Declaratory InjunctiveRelief