Department 58

Hearing Date: October 16, 2024

Case Name: Young, Spiegel & Hosp LLC v. Saum Sharafshahi

Case No.: 24STCP02454

Motion: Motion to Compel Arbitration and Appoint Arbitrator

Moving Party: Petitioner Young, Spiegel & Hosp LLC

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The Petition to compel arbitration is granted.

On August 5, 2024, Petitioner Young, Spiegel & Hosp LLC (“YSH”) filed a Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration and for Court Appointment of Arbitrator (“Petition”) against Respondent Saum Sharafshahi (“Sharafshahi”).

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting¿rulings on common issues.

When seeking to compel arbitration, the initial burden lies with the moving party to demonstrate the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by prepondernace of evidence. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 841-42; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021), 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164-65.) It is sufficient for the moving party to produce a copy of the arbitration agreement or set forth the agreement’s provisions. (Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove by a preponderance of evidence any defense to enforcement of the contract or the arbitration clause. (Ruiz, 232 Cal.App.4th at 842; Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.) Subsequently, the moving party must establish with the preponderance of admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. (Ibid.) The trial court then weighs all the evidence submitted and uses its discretion to make a final determination. (Ibid.) “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’” (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.)

If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

According to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6:

If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed. If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.

When a petition is made to the court to appoint a neutral arbitrator, the court shall nominate five persons from lists of persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration or obtained from a governmental agency concerned with arbitration or private disinterested association concerned with arbitration. The parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may within five days of receipt of notice of the nominees from the court jointly select the arbitrator whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees. If the parties fail to select an arbitrator within the five-day period, the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees.

Discussion

Around February 20, 2024, Petitioner YSH and Respondent Sharafshahi entered into a written agreement whereby YSH was to deliver legal services to Respondent in exchange for monetary compensation. (Pet. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) According to Paragraph 12 of the Retainer Agreement, Respondent was entitled to nonbinding arbitration of any fee dispute within 30 days of notice by Petitioner. (Pet. ¶ 2, Ex. A at ¶ 12.) Petitioner states that around June 28, 2024, YSH provided Respondent with a Notice of Right to Arbitrate, advising him of his right to arbitrate the fee dispute pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 6200-6206. (Pet. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Sharafshahi did not respond to Petitioner’s letter and Petitioner believes he never exercised his right to submit the dispute to nonbinding arbitration within the 30 days permitted by the Business and Professions Code. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

Furthermore, the arbitration provision provides that, in the event Respondent declines to accept nonbinding arbitration within the 30-day period, both Petitioner and Respondent are entitled to binding arbitration. (Pet. ¶ 2, Ex. A at ¶ 13.) According to the provision, binding arbitration of any dispute shall be subject to the rules of JAMS. (Id., Ex. A at ¶ 13.) Moreover, the arbitrator shall be a retired California Family Law Superior or Appellate Court Judge, the arbitration will held in the County of Los Angeles, and the arbitrator’s fees shall be equally apportioned. (Id., Ex. A. at ¶ 13(a)-(b).)

Petitioner requests that the Court issue an order compelling Respondent to arbitrate the fee dispute. (Petition., p. 3.) Petitioner also requests that the Court appoint one of the following retired judges to act as an arbitrator: Honorable Christine Byrd, Honorable Jackson Lucky, Honorable Linda Miller, or Honorable Sheila Prell Sonenshine. (Pet. ¶ 6.) The Notice and Petition were served on Respondent by substituted service on September 18, 2024. (9-25-24 Proof of Service.)

The Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that a valid arbitration agreement exists, the right to compel arbitration has not been waived by Petitioner, there are no grounds for revocation of the agreement, or any pending litigation. Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and stays proceedings pending arbitration.

Petitioner also requests that the Court appoint an arbitrator from the list of retired judges presented. Here, the parties have not agreed on a specific method of appointing the arbitrator, thus, the Court may appoint the arbitrator. Pursuant to section 1281.6, the Court nominates the Honorable Christine Byrd, Honorable Jackson Lucky, Honorable Linda Miller, Honorable Sheila Prell Sonenshine, and Honorable Amy M. Pellman as potential arbitrators in this action. If the parties do not agree on an arbitrator within ten days of receipt of notice, the Court will, upon written notice of this fact from Plaintiff, appoint an arbitrator from this list.

Conclusion

The Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed by Petitioner Young, Spiegel & Hosp LLC, is granted. The Court stays the proceedings pending arbitration.

The Court also nominates the Honorable Christine Byrd, Honorable Jackson Lucky, Honorable Linda Miller, Honorable Sheila Prell Sonenshine, and Honorable Amy M. Pellman as potential arbitrators in this action. If the parties do not agree on an arbitrator within ten days of receipt of notice, the Court will appoint an arbitrator from this list.