Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 22TRCV00168, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22TRCV00168 Hearing Date: October 12, 2022 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, October 12, 2022
Department B Calendar No. 5
PROCEEDINGS
Eden Dabalus v. Jose Ian Mangisay, et al.
22TRCV00168
Ferdinand Canlas’s Motion to Compel Mediation and Arbitration and to Stay Action
TENTATIVE RULING
Ferdinand Canlas’ Motion to Compel Mediation and Arbitration and to Stay Action is denied.
Background
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 4, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into several partnership agreements to operate several businesses. Defendants made improper demands for payment to Plaintiff and proceeded to terminate Plaintiff’s partnership. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Contract; 2. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 4. Accounting 5. Conversion; 6. Dissolution of Caring Hands Hospice, LLC; 7. Dissolution of Allure Med Spa and Wellness LLC; 8. Dissolution of Endeavors Medical Group Corp.; 9. Dissolution of Splendor Hospice and Palliative Care, LLC; 10. Dissolution of Joshua’s Palliative Care and Hospice.
Motion to Compel Arbitration
“California law reflects a strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a relatively quick and inexpensive method for resolving disputes. [Citation.] To further that policy, [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1281.2 requires a trial court to enforce a written arbitration agreement unless one of three limited exceptions applies. [Citation.] Those statutory exceptions arise where (1) a party waives the right to arbitration; (2) grounds exist for revoking the arbitration agreement; and (3) pending litigation with a third party creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on common factual or legal issues. (§ 1281.2, subds. (a)–(c).)” Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 967.
“The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination.” Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.
“The party opposing arbitration has the burden of demonstrating that an arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to require arbitration of the dispute. Nonetheless, this policy does not override ordinary principles of contract interpretation. [T]he contractual terms themselves must be carefully examined before the parties to the contract can be ordered to arbitration: Although [t]he law favors contracts for arbitration of disputes between parties, there is no policy compelling persons to accept arbitration of controversies which they have not agreed to arbitrate.” Rice v. Downs (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1223 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
In Rowe v. Exline (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1286, the Court of Appeal found that “a nonsignatory sued as an agent of a signatory may enforce an arbitration agreement.” Id. at 1286. In addition, “a nonsignatory who is the agent of a signatory can even be compelled to arbitrate claims against his will.” Id. at 1285, citing Harris v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 475, 477–78. Further, “in many cases, nonparties to arbitration agreements are allowed to enforce those agreements where there is sufficient identity of parties.” Valley Casework, Inc. v. Comfort Construction, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1021. This includes nonparties as agents of a party as well as “a third party beneficiary of an arbitration agreement.” Ibid.
Defendant moves for an order compelling mediation and arbitration of Plaintiff’s causes of action. Defendant also moves for a stay of this action.
Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2 states, in relevant part: “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[. . .]” “Generally, an arbitration agreement must be memorialized in writing. A party's acceptance of an agreement to arbitrate may be express, as where a party signs the agreement. A signed agreement is not necessary, however, and a party's acceptance may be implied in fact or be effectuated by delegated consent. An arbitration clause within a contract may be binding on a party even if the party never actually read the clause.” Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 (internal citations omitted).
Defendant failed to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. Therefore, the burden does not shift to Plaintiff to show that the arbitration clause should not be enforced. Rice, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at 1223. Defendant has identified clause 17 of the Operating Agreement for Caring Hands Hospice LLC as the subject arbitration provision. The Operating Agreement was attached as Exhibit 2. However, neither Plaintiff nor moving Defendant is identified in the Operating Agreement.
In addition, Defendant also seeks to compel mediation. Defendant provided no competent authority to demonstrate the Court’s authority to compel mediation. The two cases cited by Defendant do not stand for this proposition. The McCaffrev Group. Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1355, involved an action to compel compliance with contractual dispute resolution procedures under Civ. Code § 914. In Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1194, a contractor had filed a petition to compel mediation and arbitration, but the holding of the case actually analyzed the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. None of these cases stand for the proposition that a party can move pursuant to CCP § 1281.2 to compel mediation.
Therefore, the Motion to Compel Mediation and Arbitration is denied.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.