Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV42658, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42658    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: 61

Defendants Thrive Social Capital, Thrive Social Equity Management, Secured Holdings III, Kyle Suffolk, Kimble Cannon, and Thrive Social Equity Manageer XVII’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Defendants to give notice.

I.                   MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement to arbitrate a controversy, a court must order the petitioner and respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines the arbitration agreement exists, unless (1) the petitioner has waived its right to arbitrate; (2) grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement; or (3) “[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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

“[T]he party moving to compel arbitration bears the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. The role of the trial court is to sit as a trier of fact, weighing any affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, together with oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a determination on the issue of arbitrability.” (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.)

Defendants Thrive Social Capital, Thrive Social Equity Management, Secured Holdings III, Kyle Suffolk, Kimble Cannon, and Thrive Social Equity Manageer XVII, move to compel arbitration of the present lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Daniel Solomon Park, based on several agreements executed by Park. They present an exclusivity agreement, executed on August 9, 2019, by Park and Thrive Social Capital, which states, “Any disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be subject to binding arbitration in the city and county of Los Angeles under the law of the State of California.” (Suffolk Decl. Exh. 1, ¶ 16.) They present a management agreement executed by Plaintiff, Sativago LLC, and Thrive Social Equity Manager XVII, which requires arbitration of “[a]ny claim or controversy arising out of or in any way relating to this Agreement or any breach thereof between the parties.” (Suffolk Decl. Exh. 2, ¶ 22.) Plaintiff also excuted an Amended and Restated Operating Agreement for Sativago on July 11, 2020, which also included a provision for arbitration in JAMS of all disputes relating to the agreement. (Suffolk Decl. Exh. 4, ¶ 18(f).) Plaintiff’s allegations in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) concern these agreements. (FAC ¶¶ 24–25, 32, 46–48.)

Defendants contend that arbitration governing the present dispute has already been initiated. This arbitration, now being conducted in JAMS, is based on Defendants’ allegations of Plaintiff entering into an illegal agreement with a third party concerning the same enterprise. (Motion at p. 9.) Plaintiff filed a counterclaim on November 17, 2021, that Defendants maintain contains the same allegations as his FAC here. (Motion at pp. 9–10; Suffolk Decl. ¶ 13.)[1] Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the present motion.

Defendants have satisfied their burden to show the existence of an arbitration agreement applicable to the present controversy. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.