Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV30743, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV30743 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023 Dept: 68
Povac Investment, Inc. vs. Johnson Controls Fire Protection LP, et al., Case No. 22STCV30743
Motion to Compel Arbitration
Moving Parties – Defendant Johnson Controls Fire Protection LP
Plaintiff Povac Investment Inc. filed its complaint on September 20, 2022. Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation and concealment, recovery on license bond, and specific performance. The subcontract at issue in this dispute was for Defendant Johnson Controls Fire Protection LP to install fire alarm systems as part of a construction project. The subcontract at issue included an arbitration clause that reads, in part, as follows:
“Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Subcontract, or the breach thereof, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereat: or the Project, shall be settled by arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.”
(Motion at p. 5.)
Defendant filed its motion to compel arbitration based on this arbitration clause in the subcontract agreement. In its motion, Defendant argues that the arbitration agreement is enforceable and that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to mandatory arbitration. Defendant has requested a stay on the action until arbitration is complete. No opposition has been filed as of March 24, 2023.
Analysis
I. Legal Standard
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, 971-972.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The Court is empowered by CCP § 1281.2 to compel parties to arbitrate disputes pursuant to an agreement to do so.
Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2 states that:
“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 the revocation 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. For purposes of this section, a pending court action or special proceeding includes an action or proceeding initiated by the party refusing to arbitrate after the petition to compel arbitration has been filed, but on or before the date of the hearing on the petition. This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (CCP § 1281.2.)
The party petitioning to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court acts as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence. (CCP § 1281.2.)
A. Existence of an Agreement
Under California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) The party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (CCP § 1281.2.) In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, the court must first determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the dispute, and general principles of California contract law help guide the court in making this determination. (Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 541.)
Once petitioners allege that an arbitration agreement exists, the burden shifts to respondents to prove the falsity of the purported agreement, and no evidence or authentication is required to find the arbitration agreement exists. (SeeCondee v. Longwood Mgt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)
“With respect to the moving party’s burden to provide evidence of the¿existence¿of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court. (See¿Condee v. Longwood Management Corp.¿(2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330 [“A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 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 physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference”].) Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges. [Citation]” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC¿(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160.)
Defendant has met its initial burden of showing that an arbitration agreement exists with Plaintiff. (See Motion at p. 3; see also Ex. A to Comp.) The arbitration agreement appears valid, and the subcontract was signed by both parties. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration should be granted and the action stayed pending arbitration.
ORDER
1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Povac Investment Inc. is GRANTED.
2. This action is stayed pending arbitration.