Accordingly, the Hospital may, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, enforce the arbitration provisions in the Arbitration Agreement and the Assignment Contract. See, e.g., Hughes v. S.A.W. Entm't, Ltd., Case No. 16-cv-03371-LB, 2019 WL 2060769, at *27 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2019) (holding nonsignatory in putative class- and collective-action wage-and-hour labor dispute could enforce arbitration agreement on equitable estoppel grounds); Lucas v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., No. CV 18-1608-MWF (MRWx), 2018 WL 6177225, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2018) ("[R]egardless of whether the precise theory is beneficiary, agency, or estoppel, logic and case law combine to allow [the nonsignatory] to insist on arbitration.");Ortiz v. Volt Mgmt. Corp., Case No. 16-cv-07096-YGR, 2017 WL 2404977, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2017) ("[A]s in Garcia, it is appropriate to allow the nonsignatory defendant to compel plaintiff into arbitration because his claims were 'intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment relationship' with the signatory staffing agency.'"). B. The Arbitration Agreement's Attorney's Fees and Costs Provisions Are Valid and Enforceable
The court previously held that all of the named plaintiffs' claims are subject to arbitration other than (1) PAGA claims and (2) the claims of one named plaintiff, Diana Tejada, arising after January 31, 2017 ("Post-January-2017 Claims"). Hughes v. S.A.W. Entm't, Ltd., No. 16-cv-03371-LB, 2019 WL 2060769 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2019) (Hughes II). The court stayed each plaintiff's PAGA claim (if any) while that respective plaintiff's arbitration is pending.