Reply To Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Motion To Compel Arbitration

Reply

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.June 19, 2018

Electronically FILED 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 y Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/04/2019 06:06 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by J . Lara,Deputy Clerk Randy A. Lopez (SBN 253996) The Long Law Group, PC 30 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 402 Pasadena, California 91103 Telephone: 213-631-3993 Email: randy@tyllaw.com Nakeyia S. Williams (Missouri SBN 63141) Admitted Pro Hac Vice Macy’s, Inc. - Law Department 11477 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: 314-342-6309 Email: kia.williams@macys.com Attorneys for Defendants SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT JULIAN GOLMAKANI, Plaintiff, VS. BLOOMINGDALE’S, INC., MACY'S, INC., KELLY KIRBY, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: BC 710555 DEFENDANTS BLOOMINGDALE’S, INC.’S AND MACY'S, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ALL CIVIL PROCEEDINGS Date: January 11, 2019 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 69 Complaint filed: June 19, 2018 -1- DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants BLOMINGDALE’S, INC., MACYS, INC. and KELLY KIRBY hereby submit this reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration: I. Introduction Plaintiff egregiously rests his opposition on wholly inaccurate statements of the law and blatant misstatements of Defendants’ Program terms. It’s important to note the following undisputed facts: 1. Plaintiff admits to receiving the Plan Document. Golmakani. Decl. P 5. 2. Plaintiff admits to receiving the New Hire Program Brochure. Golmakani. Decl. P 6. 3. Plaintiff verified his electronic signature for the Associate Handbook. Golmakani. Decl. [P 3. Likewise, it is important to note the following readily verifiable facts: 1. Both the Plan Document and New Hire Brochure notified Plaintiff that he had the ability to opt-out, or be subject to binding arbitration. Ripak Decl. PP 20-28. Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-B. 2. The Election Form is attached to the New Hire Brochure and Plan Document. Ripak Decl. 99 21-22. 3. The arbitration agreement is not mandatory. Ripak Decl. P 9; Ripak Decl. Exhibit A. 4. Employees are not required to go through a multi-step grievance process before proceeding to arbitration. Ripak Decl. P 9; Ripak Decl. Exhibit A. 5. Bloomingdale’s has instituted multiple security measures to ensure the authenticity and integrity of every electronic signature. Sherrick Decl. qf 5-7, 9-12; Ripak Decl. § 27. 6. Bloomingdale’s notified Plaintiff via multiple methods, that he had the ability to opt-out, or be subject to binding arbitration. Ripak Decl. [PP 20-28; Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-G. Plaintiff’s Opposition fails to assert any valid argument to avoid arbitration. Instead, Plaintiff deliberately misstates the terms of the arbitration program. Pointedly, Plaintiff admits that he received the Plan Document and the New Hire Brochure, both of which inform Plaintiff of the arbitration agreement and the ability to opt-out of arbitration, in the event he should choose not to be covered. Golmakani. Decl. PP 5, 6; see also Ripak Decl. Exhibits A, B. 2D. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In short, none of Plaintiff’s arguments are sufficient to defeat Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. As set forth in Defendants’ motion, and further established herein, Plaintiff entered into a valid, enforceable agreement to arbitrate his claims. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted. II. The Arbitration Agreement is Valid “Whether the parties formed a valid agreement to arbitrate is determined under general California contract law.” City of Vista v. Sutro and Co., 52 Cal.App.4th 401, 407 (1997). In California, a valid and enforceable contract must satisfy the following elements: (1) parties are capable of contracting; (2) their consent; (3) a lawful object; and (4) sufficient consideration. CAL. Civ. CODE § 1550. As argued in Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, Defendants’ have satisfied their burden and their motion should be granted. a. Plaintiff Manifested Consent by His Failure to Act Plaintiff argues that his acknowledgment of the Associate handbook does not create an agreement to arbitrate. Plt. Opp. Pg. 4. However, Plaintiff’s argument purposely misstates Defendants’ position and the legal standard. California courts have made it clear that that a party may demonstrate manifestation of consent by a “failure to act.” Roth v. Malson, 67 Cal.App.4th 552, 557 (1998); see also Craig v. Brown and Root, Inc., 84 Cal. App.4th 416, 420 (2000). As set forth fully in Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, when an employee has been informed of: 1) the significance of his failure to opt out of an arbitration agreement; 2) the manner in which to express his decision to opt-out; and 3) was provided time to review the agreement and make a decision - his failure to opt out constitutes acceptance. Circuit City v. Najd., 294 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2002); Circuit City v. Ahmed, 283 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002). “Where circumstances...between the parties places the offeree under a duty to act or be bound, his silence or inactivity will constitute his assent.” Hicks v. Macy's Dep't Stores, Inc., No. 06-2345, 2006 3 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68268, *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2006); see also Quevedo v. Macy's, Inc., 798 F.Supp.2d 1122 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Bloomingdale’s, Inc. fully educated Plaintiff about the SIS Program, the arbitration agreement, and his right to opt-out. Ripak Decl. [PP 20-28; Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-G. Further, The Acknowledgment, Plan Document, New Hire Brochure, and Election Form are all written in easy-to- understand language and both clearly state that Plaintiff had a choice of whether or not to participate in arbitration. Ripak Exhibits A-C, E. Moreover, considering, Plaintiffs New Hire Acknowledgement and his viewing of the SIS New Hire Video, the evidence shows that Plaintiff was notified of the arbitration agreement and his ability to opt-out. Ripak Decl. PP 27-28; Ripak Decl. Exhibits E-G. Plaintiff admits that he received the Plan Document and SIS Brochure, both going into great detail regarding the SIS program, arbitration, and the option to opt-out of arbitration. Golmakani Decl. PP 5-6; see also Ripak Decl. PP 27-28; Ripak Decl. Exhibits E-G. Therefore, Plaintiff accepted Bloomingdale’s offer to arbitrate by continuing his employment and electing not to opt-out of arbitration, after receiving notice of: 1) the arbitration agreement; 2) his right to opt-out; and 3) notice that his silence/inaction would be deemed consent. b. Electronic Signatures are Valid and Enforceable Plaintiff fails to assert any facts which support his argument that Defendants failed to authenticate Plaintiff’s electronic signature, and failed to even address the plethora of evidence submitted by Defendants to the contrary. In fact, Defendants went into great detail demonstrating the authenticity of Plaintiff’s electronic signature. Sherrick Decl. 9 5-7, 9-12; Ripak Decl. § 27. Defendants have demonstrated that they have instituted multiple layers of security measures to ensure that the signature attributable to Plaintiff, is in fact Plaintiff’s electronic signature. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1633.9(a); see also Sherrick Decl. 9 5-7, 9-12; Ripak Decl. § 27. Sherrick’s Declaration sets forth undisputable evidence that Plaintiff simply ignores. Sherrick Decl. 9 5-7, 9-12. 4- DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Additionally, Plaintiff does not argue that someone else entered his information to electronically sign the forms, nor does he provide any explanation for Defendants’ evidence. Further, Plaintiff admits to signing for the Associate Handbook, which was signed a mere thirteen (13) minutes before the New Hire Acknowledgement. Sherrick Decl. PP 13, 15; Ripak Decl. [P 27; Ripak Exhibit E; Golmakani Exhibit 4. Therefore, Plaintiff’s own admissions support authenticity. Golmakani. Decl. PP 5-6. Plaintiff admits that he received the Associate Handbook, and even verifies the correlating electronic signature. Golmakani Decl. [P 3. Further, Plaintiff admits that he received the Plan Document and the New Hire Brochure. Golmakani. Decl. PP 5-6. All three admissions support Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff received the materials, as demonstrated by the electronic signature. Plaintiff’s desire to selectively confirm electronic signatures, in the face of substantial evidence, does not pass muster. Plaintiff’s admissions, coupled with Defendants’ comprehensive security measures, establishes that Plaintiff in fact signed the New Hire Acknowledgment and received information clearly communicating the arbitration agreement. While Plaintiff does not attack the efficacy of Defendants’ security procedure, it is important to note that Defendants’ electronic signature process, which requires the employee to enter his social security number, birth date and zip code to confirm his identity, complies with the Cal. Civ. Code §1633.9(a). Further, since Plaintiff admits to receiving the Plan Document and the New Hire Brochure, there is no appreciable dispute. III. ~~ Public Policy Favors Enforcing Arbitration Agreements The FAA establishes a “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements,” which should not be ignored on Plaintiff’s whim. CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S.Ct. 665, 669 (2012); Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24 (1991). Moreover, the arbitration agreement satisfies the California Supreme Court’s criteria to ensure employee claims are decided fairly and efficiently in arbitration. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 120 (2000). Specifically, it (1) provides for selection of neutral arbitrators; (2) permits more than minimal discovery; (3) requires a written award; (4) provides for the same relief that would be available in court; and (5) does not put unreasonable financial burdens on the employee. Ripak Decl. PP 8-15, 20-28; Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-C, -5- DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E-G; see also Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th 83 at 120. In fact, the arbitration agreement at issue here has previously been held to “satisf[y] all Armendariz requirements. Burnett v. Macy's West Stores, Inc., No. 11-1277,2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116479, *10-11(E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2011) (emphasis added); see also Craig, 84 Cal.App.4th at 422-23 (holding similar employment arbitration program “satisfies Armendariz”). Here, despite Plaintiff’s claims, the parties have agreed to arbitration. Further, Plaintiff fails to point to any credible evidence which would void the parties’ agreement. As fully argued in Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, and further herein, Plaintiff consented to and is subjected to binding arbitration. Accordingly, Plaintiff must arbitrate his claims against all Defendants. IV. The Arbitration Agreement is neither Procedurally Nor Substantively Unconscionable Plaintiff deliberately misstates facts related to the Election Form and the SIS Program. Thus, Plaintiff attempts to cast Bloomingdale’s actions as “trickery” should be rejected. a. The Election Form Repeatedly States an Employee Must Opt-Out, or He Will be Covered Under the Arbitration Agreement The Election Form makes is clear that an employee is subject to arbitration unless he opts-out by timely submitting the Election Form. Ripak Decl. Exhibit C. It reads in part as follows: “[y]ou are covered by all 4 Steps of the program when you take or continue a job with us.” Ripak Decl. Exhibit C. However, the Election Form also states five (5) times that an employee can use said form to opt-out of arbitration. Ripak Decl. Exhibit C; see alsoGolmakani Decl. Exhibit 2. In fact, the Election Form reads prominently, at the top of the page, in large font, and highlighted distinctly from other text on the first page, as follows: “RETURN THIS FORM ONLY IF EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE BENEFITS OF ARBITRATION UNDER SOLUTIONS INSTORE.” Id. at Pg. 1. (emphasis in original). G- DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Further statements of Plaintiff’s ability to opt-out seen on the first page of the Election Form are as follows: e “[The New Hire Brochure and Plan Document] also describe what you need to do if you prefer not to be covered by Step 4-Arbitration.” ¢ “During the 30 days following your hire date, you have the option to exclude yourself form being covered by Step 4-Arbitration and its benefits. The choice you will make will stay in effect for the entire duration of your employment and afterwards. This form serves as an election for, if you choose not to be covered by Arbitration.” ld. Page 2 of the Election Form, likewise makes clear that the form is to be used to opt-out of arbitration, if desired. Prominently displayed at the top of Page 2, containing bold letters and font, the Election form reads as follows: Complete and return this form only if you DO NOT want to be covered by the benefits of arbitration under solutions in store. In this case, your completed form must be returned to the Office of Solutions InSTORE and postmarked no later than 30 days from your hire date. Id. at Pg. 2. (emphasis in original). Further, on Page 2, the Election Form contains an open box to be checked if an employee wants to opt- out of arbitration, and reads as follows: [ 11 Decline Step 4-Arbitration. I have read all the information about Solutions INSTORE and I elect NOT to stay covered by Arbitration. 1d. (emphasis in original). Therefore, the Election Form makes clear that Plaintiff was covered by the arbitration agreement unless he opted-out. Therefore, Plaintiff’s arguments are in error. b. Employees Receive Transparent Communication Regarding Arbitration -7- DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 During new hire orientation, Plaintiff received significant training and exposure to the SIS Program. Ripak Decl. 4920-28. As thoroughly argued in Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, Bloomingdale’s used multiple approaches to educate Plaintiff about the arbitration agreement: 1) New Hire Acknowledgement form; 2) New Hire Brochure; 3) Plan Document; 4) Election Form; 5) SIS Program video; and 6) SIS Program website. Ripak Decl. 9 20-26, 28. Additionally, after orientation, Bloomingdale’s has posters displayed in areas frequented by employees. Ripak Decl. P 25. Moreover, Plaintiff had thirty (30) days from the date of hire to continue to review the SIS Program materials and opt-out if he should desire. Ripak Decl. PP 22-24; Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-G. Plaintiff does not allege that he was in any way prevented from reviewing the New Hire Acknowledgment, New Hire Brochure, Election Form, or Plan Document. Therefore, Plaintiff’s allegations of surprise or trickery are without merit. Furthermore, Plaintiff admits to receiving the New Hire Brochure and the Plan Document. Golmakani Decl. PP 5-6. Despite Plaintiff’s allegation, the Election Form is prominently included in the New Hire Brochure, which also contains the Plan Document. Ripak Decl. PP 21-22. Therefore, the Election Form does not refer employees to unattached documents, and it is unlikely Plaintiff received both documents, but not the Election Form. Plt. Opp. Pg. 6. Further, as established in Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, Plaintiff’s receipt of the SIS Program information, including the arbitration agreement, is supported by his electronically signed New Hire Acknowledgment. Sherrick Decl. P 13. It is also important to note that the New Hire Acknowledgement is an acknowledgement that the opt-out process will be used to bind the employee. Ripak Decl. Exhibit E. Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim any terms were hidden from Plaintiff. c. The Arbitration Agreement is Not Mandatory Plaintiff fraudulently argues that the arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable because it is mandatory. Plt. Opp. Pg. 7. However, Bloomingdale’s arbitration agreement is not mandatory. Ripak -8- DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Decl. PP 8-9, 13, 20, 22-24, 27; see also Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-C, E-F. Any and every employee can opt- out of arbitration, without any impact to his/her employment. Ripak Decl. PP 8-9, 13, 20, 22-24, 27; see also Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-C, E-F. The SIS Program materials are rife with details regarding the opt-out process. Ripak Decl. PP 8-9, 13, 20, 22-24, 27; see also Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-C, E-F. Plaintiff was permitted to opt out and would have suffered no adverse consequences. Ripak Decl. [PP 8-9, 13, 20, 22- 24, 27; see also Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-C, E-F. Therefore, Plaintiff's argument is without merit. d. The Arbitration Agreement is Not a Contract of Adhesion An arbitration agreement with an opportunity to opt-out is not a contract of adhesion. Najd, 294 F.3d at 1109; Ahmed, 283 F.3d at 1199. As argued herein, and in Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, Bloomingdale’s arbitration agreement is not mandatory. Ripak Decl. PP 8-9, 13, 20, 22-24, 27; Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-C, E-F. Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument misses the mark. e. The Arbitration Agreement Does Not Require an Employee to Take Any Step Prior to Requesting Arbitration Contrary to Plaintiff’s interpretation, an employee is not required to follow Steps 1-3, prior to arbitration. Ripak Decl. P 9. In fact, there is absolutely no language in any of the SIS Program documents that requires an employee to engage in any internal dispute resolution procedure before filing for arbitration. Ripak Decl. P 9; Ripak Decl. Exhibits A-C. Therefore, Plaintiffs argument again fails. V. Plaintiff Voluntarily Consented to Arbitration Under the objective manifestations standard, the general rule is that “[w]hen a person with the] capacity of reading and understanding an instrument signs it, he is, in the absence of fraud and imposition, bound by its contents, and is estopped from saying that its explicit provisions are contrary to his intentions or understanding.” Estate of Anderson 60 Cal.App.4th 436, 441-442 (1997). Defendants are not required to show that Plaintiff read the agreement; it must only show that Plaintiff had an opportunity to learn the terms. 9. DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rodriguez v. Sim,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39445, *16 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (emphasis added); see also Operating] Eng'rs Pension Trust v. Gilliam, 737 F.2d 1501, 1504 (9th Cir. 1984); Doe v. Network Solutions, LLC, 2008 U.S Dist. LEXIS 7397, *15 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Someone who assents to a writing is presumed to know its contents and cannot escape being bound by its terms merely by contending that he did not read them. Stewar v. Preston Pipeline, Inc., 134 Cal. App.4th 1565, 1589 (2005); see also Mission Viejo Emerg. Med. Assocs. v. Beta Healthcare Group, 197 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1155 (2011); Brookwood v. Bank of Am., 45 Cal. App.4th 1667, 1674 (1996) (employee bound by arbitration provision irrespective of whether she was aware of if when she signed contract). Here, the New Hire Acknowledgment plainly and clearly sets forth in the first sentence that Plaintiff acknowledged that he received a copy of the New Hire Brochure and Plan Document, and acknowledged that he had been instructed to review the material carefully. Ripak Decl. Exhibit E. The Acknowledgement provides in a separate paragraph: “T understand that if I do not wish to be covered by Step 4, Arbitration, the only way to notify the Company about my choice is by postmarking my election form within 30 days of hire and mailing it to the Office of Solutions InSTORE. My decision is kept confidential and will not affect my job.” Ripak Decl. Exhibit E. As established above, Plaintiff admits that he received the New Hire Brochure, which has the opt out Election Form stapled inside. Golmakani Decl. PP 5-6; see also Ripak Decl. PP 21-22. The New Brochure also had a full copy of the Plan Document attached as well. Ripak Decl. PP 21-22. Again, Plaintiff does not allege that he was under any duress or rushed through the orientation process, or in any way prevented from reviewing the Acknowledgment, New Hire Brochure, or the Plan Document. Plaintiff cannot establish that he had no notice of the SIS Program or the arbitration agreement. In addition, he had 30 days after his employment began to investigate the matter further, if he desired. Plaintiff had notice of the arbitration agreement and its opt out provision, which he undisputedly did not do. Accordingly, as a matter of law, Plaintiff assented to arbitration and should be bound by his agreement to arbitrate his claims. -10- DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFE’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VI. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, the Court should grant Defendants’ Motion and order Plaintiff to file his claims in arbitration. Dated: January 4, 2019 THE LONG LAW GROUP, PC RANDY A. LOPE Attorneys for Defendant =11= DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 30 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 402, Pasadena, California 91103. On January 4, 2019, I served the foregoing documents described as DEFENDANTS BLOOMINGDALE’S, INC.’S AND MACY’S, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ALL CIVIL PROCEEDINGS on the following person(s) in the manner indicated: Carney R. Shegerian, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Gloria Tumanyan, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 225 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 [] (BY MAIL) Iam familiar with the practice of The Long Law Group for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On this date, a copy of said document was placed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed as set forth herein, and such envelope was placed for collection and mailing at The Long Law Group, Pasadena, California, following ordinary business practices. [ X] (BY OVERNIGHT EXPRESS) I am familiar with the practice of The Long Law Group for collection and processing of correspondence for delivery by overnight courier. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Overnight Express that same day in the ordinary course of business. On this date, a copy of said document was placed in a sealed envelope designated by Overnight Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed as set forth herein, and such envelope was placed for delivery by Overnight Express at The Long Law Group, Pasadena, California, following ordinary business practices. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on January 4, 2019, a Los Angeles, California. Trdcy Vena =]2= DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION