Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCP01751, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP01751    Hearing Date: November 1, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, November 1, 2023

Case Name:                             Sandra Cohen v. Xsiavosh Asrabadi, et al.

Case No.:                                23STCP01751

Motion:                                   Petition to Compel Abritration

Moving Party:                         Petitioner Sandra Cohen

Responding Party:                   None.

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:           Petitioner Sandra Cohen’s Petition to Compel Arbitration is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

On May 22, 2023, Petitioner Sandra Cohen (“Petitioner” or “Cohen”) filed the instant Petition to Compel Arbitration (“Petition”) seeking an order compelling Respondents Xsiavosh Asrabadi (“Asrabadi”) and Bahreh Qmarsi (“Qmarsi”) (collectively “Respondents”) to arbitrate a controversy pursuant to a California Residential Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into by Petitioner and Respondents.

On August 16, 2023, the Court rejected Petitioner’s Requests for Entry of Default/Judgment against Respondents. (8-16-23 Notices of Rejection.)

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Petitioner requests that the court order Respondents to first mediate the controversy in question, and if mediation does not resolve the matter, then a binding arbitration to be conducted, all in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

OPPOSITION

            None.

REPLY

            None.

ANALYSIS

I.          Petition to Compel Arbitration

A.                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 preponderance 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.)

B.                 Analysis

Around August 8, 2020, Petitioner and Respondents entered into a California Residential Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”). (Pet. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Pursuant to the Agreement, paragraph 22(B), “the parties agreed that any dispute or claim in law or equity arising between them out of the Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not first settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” (Ibid.)

In September 2020, a dispute arose between Petitioner, as seller of the Property, and Respondents, as potential buyers of the Property, because Respondents attempted to cancel the Agreement and demand the release of the buyer’s deposit. (Ibid. at ¶ 5.) Around September 30, 2020 and January 3, 2023, Petitioner sent a letter demanding mediation pursuant to paragraph 21 of the Agreement. (Ibid. at ¶ 8.) Respondents did not respond to the letter. (Ibid.) Around March 31, 2023, Petitioner again demanded mediation and informed Respondents that she would move to compel arbitration of the dispute if they did not respond by April 7, 2023. (Ibid. at ¶ 9.) Respondents did not respond to Petitioner’s communications. (Ibid.)

Petitioner requests that the Court order Respondents to first mediate the dispute, and if that does not resolve the controversy, to compel arbitration of the dispute. (Ibid. at p. 3.)

The Court finds that Petitioner has presented the Agreement, entered into by Petitioner and Respondents, which contains a provision for arbitration of disputes arising out of the Agreement. (Pet. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) The provision states that “[t]he Parties agree to mediate any dispute or claim arising between them out of this Agreement, or any resulting transaction, before resorting to arbitration or court action.” (Ibid. at ¶ 22A.) Petitioner has shown that it has attempted to mediate the dispute; however, Respondents have not been responsive to Petitioner’s demands. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to a Court order compelling arbitration of the dispute.

However, the Court found in tthe September 25, 2023 minute order that the Petition was unclear regarding the form of relief requested. Petitioner filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration based on Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2; however, at the end of the Petition, “Petitioner prays 1. That the court order Respondents to first mediate the controversy in question, and if mediation does not resolve the matter, then a binding arbitration hearing shall be conducted, all in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.” (Pet. p. 3.)

Given the lack of clarity, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition. Petitioner was ordered to file supplemental papers clarifying whether she is moving for an order compelling arbitration or whether she wishes to proceed with mediation. Petitioner was also ordered to file the letters sent to Respondents demanding mediation of the controversy. However, Petitioner has failed to timely provide these supplemental papers. Thus, the petition is denied without prejudice.

III.       Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, the Petition is denied without prejudice.

Moving Party  to give notice.