Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01233691, Date: 2022-11-04 Tentative Ruling

The court grants Defendant Pool & Electrical Products, LLC’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Benjamin Greenbaum to arbitrate his claims.

Applicable Law

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides, inter alia:

On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such 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, unless it determines that:

(a)  The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or

(b)  Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.

(c)  A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. . . .

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1330 requires that a petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be attached to the petition and incorporated by reference

“‘[W]hen a petition to compel arbitration is filed and accompanied by prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, the court itself must determine whether the agreement exists and, if any defense to its enforcement is raised, whether it is enforceable.  Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.’”  (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 761, quoting Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)

Agreement to Arbitrate

Notwithstanding California’s “strong public policy in favor of arbitration as an expeditious and cost-effective way of resolving disputes,” a party can only be compelled to arbitrate when he or she has agreed to do so. “Whether an agreement to arbitrate exists is a threshold issue of contract formation and state contract law.” The burden of “proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement” is on the party seeking to compel arbitration. (Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 835, 843–844, internal citations omitted.)  As a result, the first step is to determine whether there was an agreement to arbitrate the pending dispute. 

On August 13, 2021, in connection with his employment, Plaintiff executed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement and agreed that all disputes between him and Pool & Electrical Products related to his employment would be resolved exclusively by arbitration. (Sanchez Decl., at  ¶ 5, Exh. A.) The stand-alone agreement is entitled “Mutual Arbitration Agreement” and signed on August 13, 2021 by both the President of Pool & Electrical Products and Plaintiff. (Sanchez Decl., at Exh. A.) 

The Agreement provides in broad terms that the parties agree to arbitrate “. . . any controversy, claim or dispute arising out of or relating to Employee's employment with Pool & Electrical Products or the termination thereof (including any contract, tort or statutory claim) shall be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services ("JAMS") in Riverside or San Bernardino County, California. . .”

Pool & Electrical Products has met its burden to show that the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate and one or more of the claims at issue are covered by the agreement.  Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to demands to arbitrate this case. (Naleway Decl., at ¶¶ 3-7, Exhs. B-D.)

If the moving party meets his or her burden, the burden shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a ground for finding the agreement unenforceable (e.g. fraud or unconscionability).  (Villacreses v. Molinari (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1230.)  Pool & Electrical Products has met its burden.  Thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show a ground for finding the agreement unenforceable. Here, Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to the motion.  Thus, he has not shown a defense to enforcement of the Agreement.

The motion to compel arbitration is granted.  This action is stayed pending completion of arbitration proceedings.  The court hereby sets a status conference regarding the arbitration for May 5, 2023 at 9 am in Department C21.

Pool & Electrical Products shall give notice of ruling and of the May 5, 2023 arbitration status conference.