Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01574, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01574    Hearing Date: September 14, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Vences v. Stan, Case No. 22SMCV01574

Hearing Date September 6, 2023 Continued to September 14, 2023

Defendant Stan’s Petition to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Vences alleges nerve damage after defendant dentist Stan performed a bone graft. Plaintiff alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and professional negligence. Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the physician-patient arbitration agreement.

California public policy favors arbitration. People v. Mapblebear Inc. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 923, 930. Absent fraudulent inducement, a party cannot avoid enforcement of an arbitration agreement because the party has limited proficiency in the English language. Caballero v. Premier Care Simi Valley LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 512, 519. It is incumbent upon the party with limited English proficiency to inform the other party and request to have it read or explained to them. Id.

The moving party has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence the existence of an arbitration agreement. Trinity v. Life Ins. Co. of North America (2022) 78 Cal.App.5^th 1111, 1121. A party opposing arbitration who asserts a defense, such as unconscionability, has the burden of proving that defense by a preponderance of evidence. Iyere v. Wise Auto Group (2023) 87 Cal. App.5th 747, 754. 

The parties’ physician-patient arbitration agreement, signed by plaintiff, states “all parties whose claims may arise out of or relate to treatment or service provided by the physician” must submit claims to arbitration. Stan decl. pg. 2, exh. A. As all claims arise out of defendant’s treatment, the agreement applies, unless it is unenforceable.

Vences argues the agreement is void because she speaks and understands English “at a very basic level,” and she was only provided the agreement in English. Response to Petition pg. 8. She states all communications with persons at defendant’s office were via Spanish-speaking assistants or receptionists. Vences decl. ¶3. Stan argues Vences’ Instagram posts, in English, refute her claim regarding ability to comprehend English. Vences exhibit C. These posts are not authenticated, so inadmissible.

Even so, per Caballero, lack of English proficiency, without more, is insufficient to render an arbitration agreement unenforceable. Vences alleges “I was told that the document presented to me at Defendant’s office . . . simply contained information about the dental procedure I was about to undergo.” Vences decl. ¶4. This is vague and ambiguous, without explanation about who told her the document’s contents, nor what she was told.

The declaration of Roshanak Khojaste states one of the documents plaintiff received included information regarding the procedure, and Vences’ allegations do not establish that she was fraudulently induced to sign the arbitration agreement. Khojaste states it was office policy to provide translators for non-English speaking patients, and care would not be withheld if a patient refused to sign the arbitration agreement. Khojaste decl. ¶¶3-6.

As Vences does not dispute the existence of the agreement to arbitrate, moving party's initial burden is met. Vences raises a procedural unconscionability defense, which she failes to prove by a preponderance of evidence. The arbitration agreement is enforceable. GRANTED.