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.