Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV19441, Date: 2025-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19441    Hearing Date: January 16, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. This action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration.

            On 8/2/2024, Plaintiff Pep Talk, LLC (Plaintiff) filed suit against Greg Harman, Grid Communications, Inc. dba Gridpbx, and Quest Digital Solutions (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) civil extortion; (2) false promise; and (3) violations of Business & Professions Code section 17200.

            On 11/4/2024, Defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay this action pending the completion of arbitration proceedings.

            This motion in unopposed.

Legal Standard

Where the Court has determined that an agreement to arbitrate a controversy exists, the Court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy …unless it determines that…  grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Among the grounds which can support rescission are fraud, duress, and unconscionability. (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239.) The Court may also decline to compel arbitration wherein there is possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2 (c).)

Discussion

I.                   Defendants’ Burden

The party moving to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving [the] existence [of an arbitration agreement] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The moving party also bears the burden of demonstrating that the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

A.    Existing Agreement

Here, Defendants submitted evidence that Plaintiff entered into a written Price Schedule on 4/26/2023 and 4/27/2024, which incorporated a Service Provider Master Services Agreement, which itself contained an arbitration provision. (Motion, Exh. A.)

Section 29.0 of the Service Provider Master Services Agreement provides that “[a]ll claims and disputes arising under or relating to this Agreement are to be settled by binding arbitration in the County and State of Orange County, California” (Ibid.)

Given that Defendants have established by a preponderance of the evidence that an arbitration agreement exists, and that Plaintiff’s claims are covered by that agreement, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to establish that the arbitration clause should not be enforced. (Pinnacle, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236.)

II.               Plaintiff’s Burden 

The party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence any defense, such as unconscionability or duress. (Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236.)

Here, Plaintiff failed to oppose this motion and thus has not set forth any grounds for the unenforceability of the arbitration provision. 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is granted. This action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.