Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV38175, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV38175 Hearing Date: September 30, 2022 Dept: 32
|
BAHMAN KOHANTEB, Plaintiff, v. HECTOR SANCHEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
|
Case No.: 21STCV38175 Hearing Date: September 30, 2022 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: motion to compel arbitration by cross-defendants
gerardo avila, alexandro espinoza, and all nations realty ontario |
|
|
|
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 2021, Plaintiff
Bahman Kohanteb initiated this action against Defendants Hector Sanchez and
Irma Sanchez. The complaint asserts a single cause of action for specific
performance based on an alleged residential property purchase agreement.
Plaintiff was the prospective buyer, and Defendants refused to sell despite the
agreement.
On December 7, 2021, Defendants
filed a cross-complaint against Gerardo Avila, Alexandro Espinoza, All Nations
Realty Ontario, and Plaintiff. The operative First Amended Cross-Complaint was
filed on June 29, 2022. Defendants contend in the FACC that their real estate
brokers failed to inform them of eviction moratoriums in place during the COVID
pandemic that prohibited Defendants from vacating tenants from the premises,
which was a condition of the sale. The FACC alleges that the brokers advised
Defendants to proceed with the sale despite these restrictions, assuring
Defendants that the tenants could be removed easily.
On August 30, 2022, Cross-Defendants
Gerardo Avila, Alexandro Espinoza, and All Nations Realty Ontario (the brokers)
filed the instant motion to compel arbitration of all claims raised in this action
based on an arbitration provision in the sale contract. Instead of opposing the
motion, Defendants and Cross-Complainants filed a joinder to the motion,
agreeing that all claims in the action should be compelled to arbitration,
including Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. Plaintiff has not filed a
response.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) states
that “[a] written provision in any . . . contract evidencing a transaction involving
commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such
contract or transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,
save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract.” (9 U.S.C. § 2.) California law incorporates many of the basic policy
objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in
favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997)
15 Cal.4th 951, 971-72.)
California law states that “[o]n petition
of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written
agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses
to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the
respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to
arbitrate the controversy exists….” (Code Civ. Proc, § 1281.2.) “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.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v.
Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)
DISCUSSION
Defendants and Cross-Complainants
concede that “[s]ince all parties signed arbitration agreements, this case
should be arbitrated.” (Joinder 4:9-13.) The sale contract, signed by Plaintiff
and Defendants, states: “The Parties agree that any dispute or claim in Law or
equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction,
which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding
arbitration. The Parties also agree to arbitrate any disputes or claims with
Broker(s), who, in writing, agree to such arbitration prior to, or within a
reasonable time after, the dispute or claim is presented to the Broker.” (Joinder,
Ex. A, § 31(B).) Thus, there is a valid arbitration agreement covering the
claims at issue. Absent an objection by Plaintiff, the matter shall be
arbitrated. (See Code Civ. Proc, § 1281.2.)
CONCLUSION
The motion to compel arbitration
filed by Cross-Defendants Gerardo Avila, Alexandro Espinoza, and All Nations
Realty Ontario is GRANTED. The Court stays the matter in its entirety.