Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 24STCV24782, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV24782 Hearing Date: May 20, 2025 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: May 20, 2025
CASE NUMBER: 24STCV24782
CASE NAME: Marc Birchall v. Public Storage; and DOES 1 through 10
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Public Storage
OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff Marc Birchall
TRIAL DATE: N/A
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
PROCEEDING: Motion to Compel
Arbitration
OPPOSITION: 7 May 2025
REPLY: 12
May 2025
TENTATIVE: Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and
stay the action is granted. The Court sets an Order to Show Cause: Status of
Arbitration for May 20, 2026, at 8:30 a.m.
Defendant to give notice.
Background
Marc
Birchall (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action on September 24,
2024, alleging claims against Public Storage (“Defendant”) arising from the
theft of Plaintiff’s trailer and tools at Defendant’s Chula Vista storage
facility. Plaintiff alleges that he rented a parking space at the facility
pursuant to a written agreement (the “Rental Agreement”) signed on September
25, 2020, on behalf of his company, Two Birds Construction.
The
Complaint asserts three causes of action:
1)
Breach of contract,
based on allegations that Defendant failed to maintain a functioning security
gate, a usable key pad, adequate security presence, and that Defendant’s staff
refused to cooperate with Plaintiff;
2)
Breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, based on the same underlying
allegations; and
3)
Intentional misrepresentation,
based on alleged false representations by Defendant regarding the existence of
security cameras on the premises and provision of a gate access code, which
Plaintiff contends caused his loss.
This
lawsuit follows a prior action filed by Plaintiff premised on the same set of
facts in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV31408. In the earlier case,
Plaintiff stipulated to binding arbitration pursuant to the Rental Agreement.
An arbitration proceeding was initiated through JAMS, but was dismissed at Plaintiff’s
request, as was the suit without prejudice, on June 26, 2024.
Following
dismissal of the earlier arbitration and lawsuit, Plaintiff filed the present
action. Defendant now moves to compel, arguing that a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement exists and encompasses Plaintiff’s claims.
I. Legal Standard
Parties may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute upon the
court finding that: (1) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the
parties; and (2) said agreement covers the controversy or controversies in the
parties’ dispute.¿(CCP, § 1281.2; Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004)¿118
Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿¿
A party petitioning to compel arbitration has the burden of
establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate and the party
opposing the petition has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, any fact necessary to its defense. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v.
Superior Court¿(1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356-57.)¿¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿¿
“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this
State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue
involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the
court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a
party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an
arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such
earlier time as the court specifies.” (CCP, § 1281.4.)¿
II. Discussion
Defendant argues that Plaintiff
entered into a valid arbitration agreement by signing the Rental Agreement,
dated September 25, 2020. (Fragoso Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A; Compl., ¶ 10.) The Rental
Agreement provides, in relevant part:
Rental Agreement
[. . .]
3. Your
Space
3.1 Estimated Size of Your Space. [¶] You
agree that it and the Facility meet your needs and you accept them “AS-IS.” The
following is applicable only if you complete this Rental Agreement online:
before moving in, you will examine Your Space and have the opportunity to
measure it. You agree that it and the Facility meet your needs and you accept them “AS-IS”
unless you inform us in writing on the Rental Date that it does not. If that
happens, we will try to find another space to meet your needs (at that space's
market rate) or we will terminate your Rental Agreement and refund you the
Monthly Rent (only) that you have paid.
[ . . .
]
16. NO
WARRANTIES. We make NO implied or express warranties, guarantees, or
representations of the nature, condition, safety, or security of Your Space or
the Facility. Per paragraph 3.1, you have inspected or you will inspect
Your Space and the Facility. You agree that we do not represent or guarantee
the safety or security of Your Space or the Facility or of any stored property.
This Rental Agreement does not create any contractual obligation for us to
increase or maintain any particular level of safety or security.
18: DISPUTE
RESOLUTION BY BINDING ARBITRATION; CLASS ACTION WAIVER. PLEASE READ THIS
PROVISION CAREFULLY. IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS.
[ . . .
]
18.2 BINDING ARBITRATION. Both you and Public
Storage agree to arbitrate any and all disputes or claims arising out of, in connection with, or in any
way relating to the relationship between you and us, including
claims that arose before
the signing of this or any prior lease or rental agreement and the
attached Addendum and any claims that may arise after the termination of this
Rental Agreement and the attached Addendum, including, but not limited to,
claims relating to advertising. All disputes concerning the arbitrability of a claim (including
disputes about the interpretation, breach, applicability, enforceability,
revocability or validity of this Rental Agreement and the attached Addendum(s))
shall be decided by the arbitrator. Nothing in this agreement shall be
read to preclude the potential availability of public injunctive relief in
arbitration to the extent such relief is available under applicable law. By
agreeing to arbitrate, both parties are giving up the right to proceed in
court. Arbitration is a method of claim resolution that is less formal than a
traditional court proceeding. It uses a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge
or jury and is subject to limited review by courts.
18.3 The
arbitration will be governed and administered by the Streamlined Arbitration
Rules and Procedures of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.
(“JAMS”) then in effect and as modified by this Rental Agreement, by one
commercial arbitrator with substantial experience in resolving commercial
contract disputes, who will be selected from the appropriate list of JAMS
arbitrators in accordance with the Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures
of JAMS. To the extent JAMS is not available in your state, the arbitration
will be governed and administered by the American Arbitration Association
Consumer Arbitration Rules, as modified by this Rental Agreement. The right to
arbitration under this arbitration provision is protected by, and any arbitration
will be governed by, the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). Both
parties agree that our business and the relationship here involve interstate
commerce.
[ . . .
]
18.8 THIS
ARBITRATION PROVISION IS OPTIONAL. You may decline this agreement to
arbitrate by sending written and signed notice to us, ATTN: Opt-Out, 701
Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201, within 30 days of signing this
Rental Agreement.
(Fragoso Decl., ¶ 4,
Ex. A.)
The court finds that Defendant met his burden of showing
that a valid arbitration agreement exists. Moreover, the Rental Agreement in
Paragraph 18.2 contains a delegation clause that gives the arbitrator clear
authority to decide arbitrability:
All
disputes concerning the arbitrability of a claim (including disputes about the
interpretation breach, applicability, enforceability, revocability or validity
of this Rental Agreement and the attached Addendum(s)) shall be decided by the
arbitrator.
(Fragoso Decl., ¶ 4,
Ex. A, § 18.2.) “This language delegates to the arbitrator questions of
arbitrability and is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended
to arbitrate arbitrability.” (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13
Cal.App.5th 880, 892.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint admits that he signed the Rental
Agreement. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s opposition does not state that
Plaintiff did not sign the Rental Agreement, nor does the opposition challenge
the validity of Plaintiff’s signature as it appears in the Rental Agreement.
Instead, Plaintiff’s opposition challenges the scope of the
Rental Agreement, asserting that Plaintiff’s claims for breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing and intentional misrepresentation should not be
compelled to arbitration because they fall outside the scope of the arbitration
agreement. “Unless a party specifically challenges the validity of the
agreement to arbitrate, both sides may be required to take all their
disputes—including disputes about the validity of their broader contract—to
arbitration. (New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira (2019) 586 U.S. 105, 112.) Because
Plaintiff failed to challenge the delegation clause itself, the dispute should
be submitted to the arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability, including the
scope of disputes covered by the Rental Agreement.
Moreover, Defendant correctly relies on Molecular
Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 696
(Molecular Analytical) for the proposition that a claim for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith is a claim that falls within the scope of an
arbitration agreement because “[t]he covenant does not exist independently of
the underlying contract.” (Id. at p. 712.) The Molecular Analytical Court
agreed that “given the strong policy favoring arbitration, plaintiff's
agreement ‘to arbitrate “any dispute” regarding “enforcement” of the provisions
of the contract plainly covers [a] claim for breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.’” (Id. at p. 712 [internal citations omitted].)
The Molecular Analytical Court also found noted that “‘[a]
long line of California and federal cases holds that claims framed in tort are
subject to contractual arbitration provisions when they arise out of the
contractual relationship between the parties.’ ” (Molecular Analytical, supra,
186 Cal.App.4th at p. 712.) Like the misrepresentation claims alleged in Molecular
Analytical, the intentional misrepresentation claim arises directly out of
Plaintiff’s use of the Defendant’s facility and the Rental Agreement itself
which states that Plaintiff agreed that “the Facility meet your needs and you
accept them ‘AS-IS’ ” and that Defendant makes no warranties regarding
the “representations of the nature, condition, safety, or security of Your
Space or the Facility.” (Fragoso Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. A, §§ 3.1, 16.)
The Rental Agreement specifically states:
Per paragraph
3.1, you have inspected or you will inspect Your Space and the Facility. You
agree that we do not represent or guarantee the safety or security of Your
Space or the Facility or of any stored property. This Rental Agreement does not
create any contractual obligation for us to increase or maintain any particular
level of safety or security.
(Id. § 16.)
The court agrees that any misrepresentations regarding the
security of Defendant’s facility are the types of claims expressly negated by
the Rental Agreement. Therefore, Plaintiff’s intentional misrepresentation
claim arises out of the contractual relationship between the parties and is
subject to arbitration. (Molecular Analytical, supra, 186
Cal.App.4th at p. 712.)
Based on the above, Defendant’s motion is granted.
Conclusion
Defendant’s
motion to compel arbitration and stay the action is granted. The Court
sets an Order
to Show Cause: Status of Arbitration for
May 20, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. Defendant to
give notice.