Filed 5/26/22 Alvarado v. S.D.S. Industries, Inc. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR MA IRMA ALVARADO, B310732 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV20856) v. S.D.S. INDUSTRIES, INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jon R. Takasugi, Judge. Affirmed. Epstein Becker & Green, Richard J. Frey, Carlos A. Becerra, Alice Kwak, for Defendants and Appellants. Pairavi Law, Edwin Pairavi, Joshua M. Mohrsaz, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ma Irma Alvarado sued her employers, defendants S.D.S. Industries, Inc. and Timely Industries, for wrongful termination and other claims. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, presenting an arbitration agreement in English that Alvarado signed on the day of her termination. Alvarado opposed the motion, stating in a declaration that she spoke and read only Spanish, and that a human resources employee had misrepresented the nature of the arbitration agreement to her before she signed it. With their reply, defendants submitted an opposing declaration stating that the arbitration agreement was accurately described to Alvarado before she signed it. The trial court held that the arbitration agreement was void due to fraud in the execution and denied defendants’ motion. We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ request for an evidentiary hearing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Complaint In June 2020, Alvarado filed a complaint asserting seven causes of action against defendants relating to age discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. She alleged she was employed by defendants from February 2015 to June 2018, and she was a “loyal and hard- working employee who was abruptly fired . . . after reporting the on-going and relentless harassment she suffered . . . due to her age, which was fifty-two (52) at the time of her termination.” Alvarado alleged that another employee repeatedly harassed and threatened her, and although Alvarado complained to her 2 supervisor, her concerns were dismissed. Alvarado alleged she “can only read and write in Spanish,” but the supervisor nevertheless required her to sign a write-up in English that was “in direct retaliation for her numerous complaint[s] of discrimination.” Alvarado alleged she was fired on June 18, 2018 for continuing to complain that the other employee was harassing her. B. Motion to compel arbitration Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the matter. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1280, 1281.4.) They asserted that on the day of her termination, Alvarado signed an arbitration agreement that “mutually obligates [Alvarado and defendants] to arbitrate any claims against the other arising out of the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals