Bergeson, LLP Clients Zining Wu, Innogrit, Inc., And Shanghai Yingren Chuang Information Technology Co. Ltd Prevail In Petition To Compel Arbitration
Bergeson, LLP Clients Zining Wu, Innogrit, Inc., and Shanghai Yingren Chuang Information Technology Co. Ltd, represented by Bergeson, LLP partners Jaideep Venkatesan, Vince Parrett, and Sara Graves, prevailed in their petition to compel arbitration of all claims in the case Yuhui Chen v. Zining Wu, et al, Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 18cv337042. On October 31, 2018, Plaintiff Yuhui (David) Chen filed a Complaint asserting 13 contract and tort claims relating to his joining Innogrit as its President and the subsequent termination of his employment in March 2018. The Complaint asserted that the Plaintiff’s employment agreement, and the arbitration clause contained within it, was unconscionable and void against public policy. On December 28, 2018, Defendants Wu, Innogrit, and Shanghai Yingren filed a petition to compel arbitration of all 13 of the Plaintiff’s claims, on the basis of the arbitration clause in the Plaintiff’s employment agreement with Innogrit.
On March 15, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants’ petition in its entirety and ordered the Plaintiff to arbitrate all of his claims. In doing so, the Court implicitly rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that his employment agreement with Innogrit was unconscionable and void against public policy. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s claims fell within the broad language of the arbitration clause, as his claims “relate to and/or arise out of the Plaintiff’s employment with Innogrit”. The Court also noted that the Employment Agreement contains an integration clause which indicates that the terms in the employment agreement are complete and final, and that the Plaintiff acknowledges that neither Innogrit nor its agents have made any promises, representations or warranties, whether express or implied, written or oral, which are not contained in the Agreement. The Court also rejected Plaintiff counsel’s request to amend the Complaint prior to its ruling, finding that allowing so “would create a ‘moving target’ for Defendants as Plaintiff would have a second bite at the apple to plead around the Arbitration provision.”