Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Dridi v. The Cheesecake Factory, Date: 2022-11-02 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED, and proceedings in this matter are stayed pending arbitration.  The matter is set for a review hearing regarding the status of arbitration on April 4, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in  this Department.

Generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues.  (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.) 

“California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.)  “This strong policy has resulted in the general rule that arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.” (Id. [internal quotations omitted].)

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.2 provides:

“On 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, unless it determines that [an exception applies].”

The question of the sufficiency of the moving party’s evidentiary burden in an initial arbitration petition under this statute is discussed in more detail in Condee v. Longwood Managment Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218 (Condee)).  The court in Condee determined the parties seeking arbitration had properly alleged the existence of an arbitration agreement and supported the allegation as provided in the predecessor of Rule 3.1330. (Condee, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 219.) It also concluded the parties seeking arbitration were not required to follow the normal procedures of document authentication and noted that section 1281.2 “does not require the petitioner to introduce the agreement into evidence.” (Condee, supra, at pp. 218, 219.) Furthermore, the court determined the trial court erred in denying the petitions to compel arbitration for failure to authenticate the arbitration agreement when the authenticity of the signature on the document was never challenged. (Ibid.)

Here, under Condee, Defendants have met their initial burden of establishing the existence of an arbitration agreement by attaching a copy of that agreement to the motion.  (Mvg. Lambert Gaffney Decl., Ex. A) at 6.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition that contests the existence of the arbitration agreement, or raising any of the other exceptions why the court should not enforce the arbitration agreement.  The court deems Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as an implied admission to the merits of Defendant’s motion.  As such, the motion is GRANTED, and proceedings in this matter are stayed pending arbitration.  The matter is set for a review hearing regarding the status of arbitration on April 4, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in  this Department.

Defendants to give notice.