Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 22SMCV00931 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22SMCV00931, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00931 Hearing Date: April 20, 2023 Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Bali Construction, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action seeking payment for construction work it performed pursuant to a subcontract agreement with Defendant J.H. McCormick, Inc. (“Defendant”), which acted as the general contractor on the construction project. Defendant now moves to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims against it, or, alternatively, to dismiss Plaintiff’s action for failure to submit this dispute to mediation. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s motion.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of Court filings in this and Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 18SMCV00290, as well as the initiation of arbitration proceedings before the American Arbitration Association and JAMS. Plaintiff’s request is unopposed and is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 permits a party to file a motion to request the Court order the parties to arbitrate a controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, the Court must grant the motion “if the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists”, unless one of four limited exceptions apply. (Ibid.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, the party moving to compel arbitration bears the burden of demonstration “that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) “With respect to the moving party’s burden to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court.” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160 [emphasis in original].) “Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges.” (Ibid.; see also Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 [“The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability”].)

Analysis

Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to its subcontract with Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues it has already initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) in accordance with the parties’ agreement. (Romero Decl. at ¶4; see also RJN Ex. G.) Defendant answered Plaintiff’s arbitration demand with AAA. (Romero Decl. at ¶5; see also RJN Ex. H.) Defendant has not filed a reply in support of its motion or otherwise contested the representations made by Plaintiff. Defendant’s March 8, 2023, Case Management Statement acknowledges Plaintiff has initiated such arbitration proceedings with AAA: “Plaintiff has commenced private arbitration before AAA, so this action should be stayed or dismissed.” (CMC at ¶4.b.)

Defendant alternatively requests this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s action because Plaintiff has not participated in mediation as required by the subcontract. Plaintiff states it participated in a mediation session on November 11, 2022, which failed to resolve the parties’ dispute. (Romero Decl. at ¶2.) Again, these representations are uncontested by Defendant.

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion as moot because the uncontested evidence establishes Plaintiff has initiated arbitration proceedings on its claims against Defendant after a failed attempt to resolve this action through mediation.

The parties include arguments in their briefs regarding whether the AAA arbitration initiated by Plaintiff should be consolidated with Defendant’s ongoing arbitration with the owner of the property where the construction project took place. Now that the dispute between the parties is in arbitration, the arbitrator, not this Court, decides procedural issues such as consolidation of arbitration proceedings. (See Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 489 [“The trial court may not step into a case submitted to arbitration and tell the arbitrator what to do and when to do it: it may not resolve procedural questions, order discovery, determine the status of claims before the arbitrator or set the case for trial because of a party’s alleged dilatory conduct. It is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to resolve such questions”].) The Court therefore makes no decision on the consolidation issue. On its own motion, the Court orders this action stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings initiated by Plaintiff.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED as moot. Further proceedings in this action are stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings initiated by Plaintiff. As such, the OSC Re: Joint Stipulations to Stay Case and Proceed to Mediation and Arbitration is discharged as moot, and the CMC is off calendar.