Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV01967, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01967    Hearing Date: November 7, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      November 7, 2023                                          TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         ZHIWEI CHEN, v. VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV01967

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Verizon Wireless Services, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Zhiwei Chen

SERVICE:                              Filed October 21, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Untimely filed October 30, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant moves for an order compelling arbitration and staying the present case.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Zhiwei Chen’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Verizon Wireless Services, LLC (“Defendant”) took control of his phones and forged Plaintiff’s signature. Plaintiff alleges on March 24, 2023, he opened a mobile phone plan for five lines, but Defendant fraudulently added lines and improperly prevented Plaintiff from accessing his phone. Plaintiff filed this complaint on August 28, 2023.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

This case is ordered stayed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

LEGAL STANDARD

“California and federal law both favor enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.” (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 889.) “A party who files a motion to compel arbitration ‘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.’’ (Cisnero Alverez v. Altamed Health Services Corporation (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 572, 580.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to submit this claim to binding arbitration.

            The arbitration clause at issue in the present case provides, in part: “YOU AND VERIZON WIRELESS (AND/OR THE SELLER) BOTH AGREE TO RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES UNDER THIS DEVICE PAYMENT AGREEMENT ONLY BY ARBITRATION OR SMALL CLAIMS COURT AND YOU WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A JUDGE OR JURY IN ANY ARBITRATION.” (Ninete Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibit B.) The installment contract purportedly bears Plaintiff’s signature. (Id. ¶ 4.)

            Further, Defendant’s “My Verizon Wireless Customer Agreement” provides in part: “THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT APPLIES TO THIS AGREEMENT. . . . ANY DISPUTE THAT IN ANY WAY RELATES TO OR ARISES OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE VALIDITY, ENFORCEABILITY, OR SCOPE OF ANY PORTION OF THIS AGREEMENT . . . WILL BE RESOLVED BY ONE OR MORE NEUTRAL ARBITRATORS BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (“AAA”)”. (Ninete Decl. ¶ 5, Exhibit C.) Defendant provides that the customer agreement is incorporated by reference in the service contract, which Plaintiff was required to accept. (Id. ¶ 5.)

            “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, while a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. [Citation.] The trial court sits as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, and any oral testimony the court may receive at its discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842.)

Thus, Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating a valid agreement to arbitration exists. In opposition, phrased by Plaintiff as a “request to dismiss Defendant’s motion for arbitration”, Plaintiff avers that he did not sign any agreement and that the purported signatures were forged. However, Plaintiff does not submit any evidence support, not even his own declaration. Plaintiff has failed to contest the validity of the agreement. Further, the agreement itself provides that the arbitrator is to determine the validity of the agreement.

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. This case is ordered stayed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

This case is ordered stayed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

The case management conference scheduled for Jan 25, 2024 is taken off calendar and the court sets a status hearing regarding arbitration for September 16, 2024 at 8:30a.m.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   November 7, 2023                                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court