Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

JONATHAN ROVEN,

CYNTHIA FLORES, an individual, KAVEH ELIHU, an individual, EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC, a California corporation, and Does 1 to 20, 

DEFENDANTS CYNTHIA FLORES, KAVEH ELIHU, AND EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, P.C.’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

The case is stayed pending arbitration.

The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Arbitration for December 5, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

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

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action was commenced by attorney Jonathan Roven (Plaintiff) who filed a Complaint on November 2, 2023 alleging three causes of action against former client Cynthia Flores (Flores), Flores’ current counsel Employee Justice Legal Group, PC (EJLG), and Flores’ lead counsel Kaveh Elihu (collectively, Defendants). The Complaint stems from a fee dispute between Plaintiff and Flores. Defendants filed the motion before the Court, a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (the Motion). Plaintiff then filed a notice of non-opposition to the Motion.   

DISCUSSION

Motion to Compel Arbitration

A. Legal Standard

Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law, 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 party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) This is usually done by presenting a copy of the signed, written agreement to the court. “A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim, or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.) 

The moving party must also establish the other party’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) The filing of a lawsuit against the moving party for a controversy clearly within the scope of the arbitration agreement affirmatively establishes the other party’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy. (Hyundai Amco America, Inc. v. S3H, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 572, 577.)

B. Analysis

Here, the Court grants the Motion because Defendants meet all the necessary requirements to support a successful Motion and because the Motion is unopposed by Plaintiff. First, Defendants present a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (Declaration of Cynthia Flores, Exh. A.) Second, Defendants establish that the issue – a fee dispute – is clearly within the scope of the agreement. (Id. [Also see Section A of the Fee Agreement titled “Arbitration”: “In the event of a dispute between client and Attorney regarding or arising out of this agreement, the parties hereto agree to submit to binding arbitration….”) Finally, Defendants demonstrate the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy. (See generally, the Complaint.)      

    CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

DATED:  February 9, 2024

                                                                 Hon. Jill Feeney 

                                                                 Judge of the Superior Court