Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 23STCV12295, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12295    Hearing Date: December 21, 2023    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     December 21, 2023                                        TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Kim Oanh Pham, et al. v. Jackson Leroy Underwood, et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV12295

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Joe Boudre and Keller Williams Realty Santa Barbara

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On May 31, 2023, Plaintiffs, Kim Oanh Pham (“Pham”) and Hollywood Investments, LLC filed a Complaint against Defendants, Jackson Leroy Underwood (“Underwood”), Gay Hilliard (“Hilliard”), Essa Rassool, Joe Boudre (“Boudre”), Keller Williams Realty Santa Barbara (“Keller Williams”), Mohammad Asraf Azdoi, and Elite REO Brokers, alleging five causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) negligence; (4) negligent misrepresentation; and (5) declaratory relief. 

            The Complaint alleges that during the escrow for the sale of Underwood’s and Hilliard’s property to Pham, Underwood and Hilliard were required to provide Plaintiffs with material disclosures pertaining to the Property, which they failed to do. 

            On August 4, 2023, Defendants, Boudre and Keller Williams, filed this motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.

            No opposition has been filed.[1] 

II.        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 Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.)  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.)¿ 

            Once petitioners allege that an arbitration agreement exists, the burden shifts to respondents to prove the falsity of the purported agreement, and no evidence or authentication is required to find the arbitration agreement exists.  (See Condee v. Longwood Mgt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) However, if the existence of the agreement is challenged, “petitioner bears the burden of proving [the arbitration agreement's] existence by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413; see also Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1058-1060.)¿¿¿ 

            “With respect to the moving party's burden to provide evidence of the¿existence¿of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court.” (Condee, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 218; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330 [“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”].) Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges. [Citation]” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC¿(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160.)¿ 

III.       DISSCUSSION

            Defendants move for an order compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims in accordance with the terms of their written agreement to arbitrate, and to stay this action pending completion of arbitration.  

            Existence of Arbitration Agreement¿ 

            Paragraph 31 of the parties’ Residential Purchase Agreement states:  

The Parties agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which Is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration. The Parties also agree to arbitrate any disputes or claims with Agents(s), who, in writing, agree to such arbitration prior to, or within a reasonable time after, the dispute or claim is presented to the Agent.  

(Kroes Decl., Exh. A.) 

            The Court finds Defendants have met their burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties.¿ Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion to compel.  As such, Plaintiffs fail to present any evidence or argument in support of a defense to the motion to compel.  Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. ¿ 

IV.       CONCLUSION 

            The unopposed motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.¿ The proceedings before this Court are STAYED pending the outcome of the parties’ arbitration.¿ 

            Given the Court’s ruling on the motion to compel arbitration, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the Complaint is MOOT.

            The Court sets a status conference re: arbitration for October 3, 2024, at 9:00 am. 

            Defendants to give Notice.

Dated:   December 21, 2023