Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 24SMCV02294, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02294    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Aramyan v. Hovespian

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Raffi Hovespian

RESP. PARTY:         None

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Raffi Hovespian’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay the Proceeding is GRANTED. Defendant has met their burden to provide the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and thus has not met their burden to show a defense to the existence and enforcement of the arbitration agreement. The entire action is stayed pending resolution of arbitration pursuant to CCP § 1281.4. 

REASONING

            Defendant Raffi Hovespian (“Defendant”) moves to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff Anzhela Aramyan (“Plaintiff”) based on the Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement (“Arbitration Agreement”) the parties entered into on 10-22-21. (Bagdasaryan Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Defendant declares that on 10-16-24 Defendant requested that Plaintiff stipulate to submit her claims to arbitration in compliance with the Arbitration Agreement, however Plaintiff has not responded to the request as of the Motion filing date. (See Bagdasaryan Decl., ¶ 4; Ex. B.)

            The Arbitration Agreement, titled, “PHSYSICIAN-PATIENT ARBITRATION AGREEMENT” centered and bolded at the top of the agreement, provides the following agreement between the Parties in relevant part:

Article 1: Agreement to Arbitrate: It is understood that any disputes as to medical malpractice, that is to whether any medical services rendered under this contract were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently, or incompetently rendered, will be determined by submission to arbitration as provided by California law, and not by a lawsuit or resort to court process except as California law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings. Both parties to this contract, by entering into it , are giving up their constitutional rights to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury, and instead are accepting the use of arbitration.

Article 2: All Claims Must be Arbitrated: All claims for monetary damages exceeding the jurisdictional limit of the small claims court against the physician, and the physician’s partners, associates, association, corporation or partnership, and the employees, agents and estates of any of them, must be arbitrated including, without limitation, claims for loss of consortium, wrongful death, emotional distress or punitive damages. Filing of any action in any court by the physician or patient to collect or contest any medical fee shall not waive the right to compel arbitration of any malpractice claim. However, following the assertion of any malpractice claim, any fee dispute, whether or not the subject of any existing court action, shall also be resolved by arbitration.

(Bagdasaryan Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.)

            Under both the Title 9 section 2 of the United States Code (known as the Federal Arbitration Act, hereinafter “FAA”) and the Title 9 of Part III of the California Code of Civil Procedure commencing at section 1281 (known as the California Arbitration Act, hereinafter “CAA”), arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract.  (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) 

            “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.” (Rice v. Downs (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1223, citing Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686-87.)   “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, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner…”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

            “A party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” (Olvera v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 447, 453.) CCP §1281.2 only allows the Court to deny enforcement of an applicable arbitration agreement where the party resisting arbitration demonstrates (1) waiver; (2) grounds for rescission of the agreement; or (3) subsection (c) grounds involving third parties to the arbitration agreement and potential for inconsistent rulings of fact or law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

I.                      Existence of a Valid Agreement

“An essential element of any contract is the consent of the parties, or mutual assent.”  (Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, 270.)  “Mutual assent may be manifested by written or spoken words, or by conduct.”  (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 850.)  A party does not assent to binding arbitration by terms on a website that are inconspicuous.  (Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 855, 866-867.)  Relevant factors relating to conspicuousness of an arbitration clause include the hyperlink’s placement, color, size, and other qualities relative to the overall design of the website.  (See id. at pp. 865-866.)

            Defendant presents evidence of an applicable arbitration agreement entered into by the parties on 10-22-21. (Bagdasaryan Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A.)  No stipulation was agreed upon and the Motion to Compel was brought by Defendant. (See generally Motion.) Defendant establishes that a demand for arbitration was made through the email conversation, and that Plaintiff refused to arbitrate or stipulate by not responding to the request. (See HM DG, Inc. v. Amini (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1112 [“The statute does not explicitly require the petitioning party to establish that a proper demand for arbitration was made. Nevertheless, a “necessary implication” of the language requiring “ ‘the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy ...’ ... is that a request or demand for arbitration under the written agreement to arbitrate has been made and refused.”].)

            Defendant establishes that the claims alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint including Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith, Unjust Enrichment, IIED are within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. (Bagdasaryan Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. A [“All claims for monetary damages exceeding the jurisdictional limit of the small claims court against the physician, and the physician’s partners, associates, association, corporation or partnership, and the employees, agents and estates of any of them, must be arbitrated including, without limitation, claims for loss of consortium, wrongful death, emotional distress or punitive damages”].)

            Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has met their burden to provide evidence of a valid and signed arbitration agreement between the parties covering the disputes in question.  Additionally, the Court finds that Defendant has not waived his right to compel arbitration through any delay in bringing the motion as no trial date has been set, the Defendant filed the Motion within five months of the Complaint filing, and no discovery was completed at the motion filing time.

The burden now shifts to the Plaintiff to provide a defense to enforceability. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the Motion. Plaintiff has not met their burden to show any defense to enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement.

Finally, the Court notes Defendant’s proof of service of the motion shows the motion was served electronically on counsel for Plaintiff on October 18, 2024 and viewed and received electronically by Plaintiff’s counsel on October 21, 2024. (Defendant’s notice of non-opposition, Ex. A.) That service was proper.  CCP §1010.6. mandates local court rules will determine electronic service for civil actions. LASC Rule 3.4 mandates the electronic filing of all documents in all civil case types by litigants represented by attorneys. CRC Rule 2.251(c) mandates that when a party is required to file documents electronically, the party must also accept service of documents electronically.  No consent or agreement is required.

            Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.