Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

LORILEE HOUSE, ET AL.; 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

 

WILSHIRE LAW, ET AL;  

 

Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV26029  

 

DEFENDANTS’ PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

 

Defendants Wilshire Law Firm, PLC’s and Bobby Babak Saadian’s PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY ACTION is GRANTED, pending filing of a completed proof of service.

Defendants are ordered to file a completed proof of service in advance of the hearing on this motion or to indicate that the motion was not served if that is the case.

The Court sets a status date regarding arbitration for August 9, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

Moving parties to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is a legal malpractice case. Plaintiffs Lorilee House and Harold House allege the following against Defendants Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and Bobby Babak Saadian: After a serious motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 5, 2018, Plaintiffs contacted Defendants regarding representation. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to, inter alia, reasonably negotiate and pay the Plaintiffs' medical bills after settlement and not overcharge them for legal fees and costs. 

On October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed suit asserting causes of action for: 

1. Legal Malpractice;

2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and

3. Fraud. 

On December 1, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion. 

To date, as of Tuesday December 26, 2023, no opposition has been received (due 9 court days before the hearing). 

DISCUSSION  

The court’s starting point is whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. (Cruise v. Kroger Co. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 390, 396.) A petition to compel arbitration must allege both (1) a “written agreement to arbitrate” the controversy, and (2) that a party to that agreement “refuses to arbitrate” the controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Once this is done, the burden shifts to the opposing party to challenge the purported agreement. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218–219.) In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, the court must first determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the dispute, and general principles of California contract law help guide the court in making this determination. (Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 541.) A petition to compel arbitration is a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Frog Creek Partners, LLC. v. Vance Brown, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 515, 532.) California's "strong policy" in favor of arbitration has resulted in the "general rule that arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute." (Coast Plaza Doctors' Hosp. v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.)

Defendants move to compel arbitration because the parties have signed a written arbitration agreement that compels arbitration of the dispute here.

Section 20 of the retainer agreements (identical as to each Plaintiff) provides that “[a]ll disputes between Attorney and Client, including costs, fees, advances, quality of service, malpractice claims to include breach of fiduciary duty, and or fraud shall be submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with $1280, et sec.. . ." (See Saadian Decl., Ex. A, p. 9 of 17 of PDF; Ex. B p. 15 of 17 of PDF.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims (all the causes of action in the complaint fall within the ambit of “all disputes”) are expressly covered under the language of the retainer agreements. 

No opposition challenging the validity of the agreements has been filed.

Therefore, the petition is granted.

DATED:  December 29, 2023  

________________________________ 

Hon. Jill Feeney  

Judge of the Superior Court