Simon v. Southern Cal. Reproductive Med. Center Group
Filed 3/27/06 Simon v. Southern Cal. Reproductive Med. Center Group CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| STUART SIMON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIVE MEDICAL CENTER GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B181865 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC318383) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Morris B. Jones, Judge. Affirmed.
Silver & Freedman, Andrew B. Kaplan and Bess Blank for Defendants and Appellants.
Rosenberg Mendlin & Rosen, Joyce Mendlin and Roger Rosen for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant employer Southern California Reproductive Center Medical Group, Inc. (SCRC), and defendants ART Reproductive Center, Inc., Hal C. Danzer, M.D., Roxbury Surgery Center, Mark W. Surrey, M.D., and ART Clinical Laboratory (collectively appellants), appeal from a trial court order denying their petition to compel arbitration. Finding sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellants waived any contractual right to arbitration, we affirm.
FACTS
As of March 2002, respondent Stuart Simon worked for appellant SCRC as the administrator of SCRC's medical office. In January 2004 respondent went on an extensive medical leave of absence because he was diagnosed with a brain tumor. While on leave, respondent was terminated on March 18, 2004. On July 13, 2004, he filed a complaint against appellants alleging wrongful termination and discrimination, among other claims.
On November 29, 2004, appellants filed a petition and motion for an order compelling arbitration. Identified in the motion was an employee handbook containing an arbitration agreement. Evidence was presented that respondent signed a receipt and acknowledgment of the employee handbook.
In opposition, respondent argued that appellants waived the right to arbitrate the case. One of his attorneys, Roger Rosen, filed a declaration stating that on July 28, 2004, appellants' trial counsel, Beryl Weiner and Joyce Craig, met with Rosen and his partner, attorney Joyce Mendlin, to discuss the lawsuit. We quote from paragraphs six and seven of that declaration: â€
