Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV04087, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04087    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Akbarnejad v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case no. 24SMCV04087

Hearing date January 30, 2025

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Akbarnejad, an Iranian national, sues defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for declaratory relief, conversion and unjust enrichment following defendant’s freezing of plaintiff’s checking account pursuant to federal U.S. sanctions being imposed on Iran. Defendant moves to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

California public policy favors arbitration as an efficient alternative to litigation. Code Civ. Proc. §1280, et seq., Madden v. Kaiser Found. Hosps. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 706. The FAA applies in both federal and state courts. Cronus Invs., Inc. v. Concierge Servs. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 384. The FAA “leaves no place for the exercise of discretion . . . but instead mandates that . . . courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.

The Court’s inquiry under the FAA is straightforward; first the court must determine whether the FAA applies to the arbitration agreement, then the court must order arbitration as long as: (i) the parties agreed to arbitrate; and (ii) the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement. See Lifescan, Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Services, Inc. (9th Cir. 2004) 363 F.3d 1010, 1012. The party opposing arbitration has the burden to demonstrate the agreement “cannot be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute.” Buckhorn v. St. Jude Heritage Medical Group (2004) 121 Cal. App. 4th 1401, 1406.

Defendant argues plaintiff signed an account application which included a mutual arbitration agreement. Defendant offers the declaration of business executive consultant Ward with the agreement (exh. C). Page 35 states “The Federal Arbitration Act (Title 9 of the United States Code) governs this Arbitration Agreement and any arbitration between Wells Fargo and [plaintiff.]” Decl. Ward exh. C. The arbitration agreement exists and is subject to the FAA. Plaintiff’s claims revolve around access to, and the contents of, plaintiff’s bank account. The dispute falls within the scope of the agreement.

Plaintiff does not dispute the agreement’s existence, signing the agreement, its applicability to the claims or applicability of the FAA. Plaintiff offers her declaration and the declaration of counsel Shafie. Plaintiff offers 7 pages of citations with no argument. Plaintiff asserts there was no intent to submit to arbitration. Decl. Akbarnejad para. 5. Plaintiff asserts she was not provided a translation of the agreement in Farsi, her native language. Id. Plaintiff asserts she was unaware of the arbitration agreement and did not intend to agree to arbitrate. Id.

Defendant argues whether plaintiff could read the agreement is irrelevant as a matter of law because plaintiff signed the agreement. See e.g., Fields v. Blue Shield of California, (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 570, 578 (holding a party is bound by contract provisions and cannot complain of unfamiliarity of the language of a contract). Defendant is correct; it is a signatory’s duty to read a contract carefully and to know to what one is agreeing.

Plaintiff cites case law regarding unconscionability. This is not argument; the court will not read an argument into an opposition where it is not readily ascertainable. Further, plaintiff offers no evidence demonstrating unconscionability. Plaintiff states “An arbitration clause will not be enforced where it is not conspicuous.” Opp. 10:25. This is not an argument, and no evidence of whether the agreement was conspicuous is offered.

Defendant established existence of a signed arbitration agreement. The agreement is subject to the FAA. GRANTED; the parties are ordered to arbitration. The action is stayed pending completion of arbitration.