Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Amirie v. Oakmont Seniro Living of Huntington Beach OPCO, LLC", Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petition to Compel Arbitration.
Defendants Oakmont Senior Living of Huntington Beach OPCO, LLC dba Oakmont of Huntington Beach; Oakmont Management Group, LLC and HSRE Oakmont TRS, LLC move to compel Plaintiff Susan Amirie, by and through her successor in interest, Javeed Amirie, to arbitrate her claims against Defendants. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Decedent’s Residence and Services Agreement contains an arbitration provision, which provides the following:
Therefore, by signing below, and in consideration of the parties’ mutual agreement to arbitrate, the parties agree that if informal resolution is not possible, any and all claims or disputes arising from or related to this Agreement or to your rights, obligations, care, or services at the Community shall be resolved by submission to neutral, binding arbitration in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act.
…
Unless excluded under subsection 2 of this Arbitration Clause, all claims relating to this Agreement or to your rights or obligations at the Community, including but not limited to claims involving the provision of care or services, shall be subject to arbitration.
(Acosta-Louer Dec., Ex. 4.)
Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of this document or that the Arbitration Agreement covers the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
The arbitration agreement was signed by Jamsheed (Jayme) Amirie on December 22, 2021. (Id.)
The arbitration agreement states that arbitration will be conducted “in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act.” (Acosta-Louer Dec., Ex. 4.) The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which includes both procedural and substantive provisions, governs agreements involving interstate commerce. There is no dispute that the FAA applies.
The FAA states
that written arbitration agreements “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.) The Supreme
Court has described this provision as reflecting both a “liberal federal
policy favoring arbitration,” and the “fundamental principle that arbitration
is a matter of contract.” (AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
(2011) 563 U.S. 333.) The FAA permits agreements to arbitrate to be
invalidated by “generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud,
duress, or unconscionability.” (Id.) When deciding whether a valid
arbitration agreement exists, courts generally apply “ordinary state-law
principles that govern the formation of contracts.” (First
Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944.)
“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. If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement—either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation [citation]—that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense.” (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)
Defendants submitted three documents in connection with establishing Jamsheed aka Jayme Amirie’s authority to sign on Decedent’s behalf: 1) Advance Health Care Directive, 2) Durable Power of Attorney for Management of Property and Personal Affairs, and 3) an email from Kay M. Holmes to Jayme Amirie, dated December 21, 2021.
The Advance Health Care Directive, which was signed on April 14, 2015, designated Jayme, Kay Holmes, and Javeed Amirie as her agents to make healthcare decisions. The three individuals were to act for her by a majority unless only two of them were able and willing to act, in which case they must act by unanimity. (Acosta-Louer Dec., Ex. 1, § 1.1.)
The Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA), which was also signed on April 14, 2015, appoints Arya Abbas Amirie as Decedent’s attorney in fact. (Acosta-Louer Dec., Ex. 2.) In the event Arya Abbas is unable or unwilling to act, Decedent appointed the following persons in order 1) Kay Holmes, 2) Jamsheed Amirie, and 3) Javeed Amirie. The DPOA states that it is effective only upon Decedent’s incapacity – i.e., when a court has made a finding to that effect, a guardian or conservator duly appointed by a court is serving, or upon written certification by two physicians that she is unable to properly care for herself or her property. (Id. at § 2.1.) In other words, the DPOA is a springing power of attorney that does not come into effect until Decedent is “incapacitated.”
The parties dispute whether Decedent was “incapacitated” at the time of her admission and thus whether the DPOA ever came into effect. Plaintiff provides the declaration of Javeed Amirie, stating that at no time prior to Decedent’s death on May 21, 2022, no Court had declared her to be incompetent or no two physicians had declared her to be incapacitated. (Javeed Amirie Dec., ¶¶ 2-3.) Defendants have provided no evidence to contradict this conclusion or to establish that Decedent was “incapacitated” at the time of her admission. Defendants have not met their burden of proving that the DPOA ever came into effect and that Jayme had authority to bind Decedent to the arbitration agreement.
Similarly, the Advance Health Care Directive states that it becomes effective “when my primary physician determines that I am unable to make my own health care decisions.” (Acosta-Louer Dec., Ex. 1, § 1.3.) Defendants have not provided any such evidence to show that the Advance Health Care Directive came into effect. Because Defendants have not met their burden of showing that the arbitration agreement is enforceable, the motion is DENIED.
Defendants’ objection to the declaration of Stephen M. Garcia is sustained. Defendants’ objection to the declaration of Javeed Amirie is overruled.
Plaintiff to give notice.