Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV18787, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18787    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Date:               10/25/22 (8:30 AM)                                       

Case:               Leslie Klein v. Jonathon Polter et al. (22STCV18787)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Shlomo Rechnitz’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, joined by Defendant Jonathon Polter, is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Limited Liability Company Agreement of Life Capital Group, LLC (“Agreement”), plaintiff is obligated to submit his claims against defendants Shlomo Rechnitz and Jonathon Polter to arbitration. (Wagner Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1 at § 12.1 [“If any dispute arises between the Members regarding this Agreement or any provision hereof, that dispute shall be resolved through a binding arbitration proceeding to be conducted in the State of California in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the Rabbinical Council of California”].)

Plaintiff’s claims arise of the Agreement. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14, 16.)

With respect to Rechnitz, as the persons who executed the Agreement, plaintiff and Rechnitz are “Members” under the Agreement. (Wagner Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1 at § 2.1 [“The Company shall consist of the Members executing this Agreement and any substitute or additional Members admitted to the Company in accordance with the terms hereof.”)

With respect to Polter, plaintiff alleges that Polter is an agent of Rechnitz. (Compl. ¶ 11 [defendants are allegedly agents of each other].) “California law permits a nonsignatory defendant to compel a signatory plaintiff to arbitrate where there is a connection between the claims alleged against the nonsignatory and its agency relationship with a signatory.” (Cohen v. TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program, LLC (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 840, 863.) Plaintiff’s claims against Polter are related to Polter’s refusal to provide financial documents for inspection, as purportedly required under the Agreement, in his capacity as manager of Life Capital Group, LLC. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 15, 16.)

Plaintiff does not dispute the enforcement of the arbitration provision in the Agreement by either Rechnitz or Polter. Rather, plaintiff requests that the arbitration take place using the services of the Rabbinical Council in New York. (Klein Decl. ¶ 2.)

“If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed.” (CCP § 1281.6.) The Agreement provides for the arbitration to take place “in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the Rabbinical Council of California.” (Wagner Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 1 at § 12.1.) The rules of the Rabbinical Council of California provide for the “Beth Din” – a Rabbinic Court – to select three rabbis to serve as arbitrators. (See Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 46 [“A ‘beth din,’. . . is a Rabbinic Court, an authoritative forum of Jewish law”].) Because plaintiff agreed to the rules of the Rabbinical Council of California, which provide for a beth din to select the arbitrators, plaintiff’s request runs contrary to his agreement to arbitrate and must be rejected.

Plaintiff also requests the Court to order the parties to engage in mediation before arbitration. (Klein Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff cites no authority for the Court to issue such an order—thought he parties are free to pursue mediation of their own accord.

The motion is GRANTED, except as to plaintiff’s claims against nonsignatory defendant Security Life of Denver Insurance Company. Pursuant to CCP § 1281.4, this action is STAYED pending the completion of arbitration.