White v. Overland Terrace Healthcare Centre CA2/1
B306619
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- In March 2018 White began working at a facility identified in an arbitration agreement as “Country Villa [redacted]” and signed an Agreement To Be Bound By Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy that designated the “Company”/“employer” as Country Villa [redacted].
- During employment White received paychecks from Overland Terrace Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP (Overland) or jointly from Overland and Rockport Administrative Services, LLC (Rockport); Rockport provided back-office services.
- White reported suspected Medicare fraud, resigned in May 2019, and sued Rockport in October 2019 for constructive termination, IIED, and statutory whistleblower/retaliation claims; Overland was later substituted in as a defendant.
- Rockport moved to compel arbitration; the trial court denied that motion because the written agreement named Country Villa South (not Rockport) and Rockport presented no evidence linking itself to that entity.
- Overland then moved to compel arbitration; the trial court again denied the motion for the same reason (no evidence the Country Villa named in the agreement was Overland). Overland appealed.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | Overland's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Overland proved an agreement to arbitrate with White | Agreement was between White and Country Villa [redacted], not Overland | Overland operated as/furnished Country Villa South and therefore is a party/employer | Overland failed to meet its burden; evidence conflicted and did not compel that finding |
| Whether a nonsignatory may enforce the agreement as agent of signatory | No evidence Overland acted as Country Villa's agent | Overland was agent of Country Villa South, so can enforce clause | No agency shown; Overland cannot enforce as agent |
| Whether equitable estoppel binds White to arbitrate | Claims are statutory/tort, not contract-based, so estoppel inapplicable | White’s claims are intertwined with the agreement so estoppel applies | Estoppel does not apply; claims are not founded on the agreement |
| Whether White’s failure to file a declaration defeated her opposition | Movant bears initial burden to prove arbitration; burden never shifted | White did not file a declaration opposing the motion | Overland did not carry initial burden, so lack of White declaration is immaterial |
Key Cases Cited
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) (arbitration is a matter of consent/contract)
- American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228 (2013) (arbitration enforces parties’ contractual allocation of disputes)
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Dev. (US), LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223 (2012) (moving party must prove existence of arbitration agreement between the parties)
- Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Sec. Corp., 14 Cal.4th 394 (1996) (movant bears burden to establish agreement to arbitrate)
- Marenco v. DirecTV LLC, 233 Cal.App.4th 1409 (2015) (California presumes arbitration proceedings are among signatories; nonsignatory enforcement requires special doctrines)
- Rowe v. Exline, 153 Cal.App.4th 1276 (2007) (only signatories generally may invoke arbitration; estoppel and agency are exceptions)