Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV16740, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16740    Hearing Date: May 16, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant PRC Restoration, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiffs Estate of Rodell Durham (“Estate”) and Theresa Durham (“Durham”) filed this action against Defendant PRC Restoration, Inc. (“Defendant”) for general negligence.

On March 28, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On April 3, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration to be heard on May 16, 2023.

Trial is currently set for January 11, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court enforce arbitration.

LEGAL STANDARD

A petition to compel arbitration must allege both (1) a “written agreement to arbitrate” the controversy, and (2) that a party to that agreement “refuses to arbitrate” the controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) The Court shall grant the petition unless the petitioner waived the right to compel arbitration, or other grounds exist for rescission of the agreement. (Id.)

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1290.4, subdivision (b) requires a petition to compel arbitration under § 1281.2 to be served on the parties as provided in their arbitration agreement or, if no method was agreed to, in the same manner required for service of summons, if the party to be served has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously

been served in accordance with this subdivision. (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928.)

Under California law, an arbitration agreement must be in some measure both procedurally and substantively unconscionable in order for the agreement to be unenforceable. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114.) “But they need not be present in the same degree. . . . [T]he more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa.” (Id.)

Procedural unconscionability focuses on two factors: oppression and surprise. (A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 437, 486.) Oppression is an “inequality of bargaining power which results in no real negotiation and ‘an absence of meaningful choice.’” (Id.) Surprise involves the extent to which the agreed upon terms are hidden away “by the party seeking to enforce the disputed terms.” (Id.)

Substantive unconscionability does not have a precise definition, but generally a contract is found to be “substantively suspect if it reallocates the risks of the bargain in an objectively unreasonable or unexpected manner.” (Id. at 487.)

DISCUSSION

Overview

A petition to compel arbitration must both allege a written agreement to arbitrate and that a party refuses to arbitrate the controversy. In filing the complaint, Plaintiffs have refused to arbitrate the controversy.

Plaintiffs hired Defendant to provide drying and sanitization services at their residence. The alleged injury stems from the allegedly negligent work performed within the scope of their contract. The contract contains an arbitration provision that triggers if alleged damages exceed $25,000.00. “Any claim, dispute, or controversy involving damages or claims for a sum greater than $25,000 arising out of or relating to this contract, the work or the performance of the Work shall be decided by & judgment may be entered on the award of the arbitrator.” (Ex. 2.) Both Durham and the Decedent signed the contract. (Ex. 2.) Plaintiff served a statement of damages on Defendant, indicating they were seeking damages in excess of $80,000.00, triggering the arbitration provision of the contract.

Parties signed a binding contract with an arbitration provision; the arbitration provision has triggered based on the requested damages. All conditions are satisfied. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant PRC Restoration, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. This action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.