Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCP00146, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCP00146    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                          September 15, 2022

Moving Parties:                      Petitioners 20927 Amie Owner, LLC, et al.

Responding Party:                  None

Petition for Order Compelling Arbitration

            The court considered the petition and reply papers.  No response was filed.

RULING

            The petition is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

            On April 29, 2022, petitioners 20927 Amie Owner, LLC, 21023 Amie Owner, LLC, 21107 Amie Owner, LLC, 4006 Emerald Owner, LLC, and 21007 Victor Owner, LLC filed a petition for order compelling arbitration against Realty Holdings PSJC LLC, Shikha Vidjeardji, and Perumal Radakichenan. 

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Under CCP § 1281, a “written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and revocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.”

Under CCP § 1281.2, “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: . . . (c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action . . . 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. . . . (d) . . . . If the court determines that a party to the arbitration is also a party to litigation in a pending court action . . . with a third party as set forth under subdivision (c) herein, the court (1) may refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement . . . ; (2) may order intervention or joinder as to all or only certain issues; (3) may order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action . . . pending the outcome of arbitration proceeding; or (4) may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the court action or special proceeding.” 

DISCUSSION

            Petitioners request an order compelling respondents to arbitration.

            In the petition, petitioners allege that on February 17, 2021, NextGen Apartment, LLC as the buyer entered into a purchase agreement with Realty Holdings PSJC, LLC as the seller for a portfolio of five multi-residential properties totaling 138 units and two non-conforming units.  During escrow, petitioners became the record title holders of their corresponding properties.  Petitioners allege that the respondents wrongfully collected and are holding post close tenant rents, which are owed to the petitioners pursuant to Section 5 of the Second Amendment to the Purchase Agreement.  Petitioners calculate that respondents received at least $82,834 of rents that are wrongfully being withheld. 

            Existence of an agreement to arbitrate

“As stated in Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 625, 634 ‘The right to arbitration depends upon contract; a petition to compel arbitration is simply a suit in equity seeking specific performance of that contract.  There is no public policy favoring arbitration of disputes that the parties have not agreed to arbitrate.’”  Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 1229.

Petitioners contends that the Purchase Agreement between the parties contains a provision requiring that any dispute arising from the contract be submitted to arbitration for resolution.  See Exh. 1 Purchase Agreement, at Section 32.  Petitioners also contend that respondents refused to proceed to arbitration despite petitioners repeated written request.  Exh. 2 Demand letter dated September 27, 2021; Exhs. 3, 4, 5 email correspondence; Exh. 6 Final Demand to Compel Arbitration.

The court finds that petitioners have met their burden of showing the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and that respondents have refused to arbitrate.

            There is no response or opposition.

The petition is therefore GRANTED.

            Petitioners are ordered to give notice of the ruling.