Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP03308, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03308     Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND APPOINT ARBITRATOR

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Executive Presentations, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND APPOINT ARBITRATOR

(CCP §§ 1281.2)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Appoint Arbitrator filed by Petitioner Executive Presentations, Inc. is CONTINUED to FEBRUARY 23, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Petitioner is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 NONE

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 NONE

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     NONE

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of January 8, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of January 8, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On September 6, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Compel Arbitration and for the Court to Appoint an Arbitrator (“Petition”) seeking an order compelling Respondent Joshua Weisbord (“Respondent”) to arbitrate a controversy pursuant to a written contract entered into by Petitioner and Respondent.

II.              Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2, generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting¿rulings on common issues.

When seeking to compel arbitration, the initial burden lies with the moving party to demonstrate the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by prepondernace of evidence.  (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 841-42; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021), 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164-65.)  It is sufficient for the moving party to produce a copy of the arbitration agreement or set forth the agreement’s provisions.  (Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.)  The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove by a preponderance of evidence any defense to enforcement of the contract or the arbitration clause.  (Ruiz, 232 Cal.App.4th at 842; Gamboa, 72 Cal.App.5th at 165.)  Subsequently, the moving party must establish with the preponderance of admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.  (Ibid.)  The trial court then weighs all the evidence submitted and uses its discretion to make a final determination.  (Ibid.)  “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’”  (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.)

If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

III.            Discussion

Petitioner seeks to a Court order compelling Respondent to arbitrate a dispute arising out of a written contract entered into between Petitioner and Respondent.  (Pet. pp. 3-4.)  Petitioner also requests that the Court appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute.  (Ibid.)

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Petitioner has not filed proof of service indicating that Respondent has been served with the Petition and Notice of Hearing.  On December 20, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner’s Application for Publication; however, Petitioner has not filed any subsequent proof that Respondent has been served by publication.  For this reason, the Court continues the hearing on the Petition and orders Petitioner to file proof that Respondent has been served with the Petition and Notice of Hearing.

IV.           Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above,

The hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Appoint Arbitrator filed by Petitioner Executive Presentations, Inc. is CONTINUED to FEBRUARY 23, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Petitioner is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.