Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCP03946, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP03946 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024
Case Name: JAMRA, JAMRA & HANASAB, L.L.P. v. JEFFREY S. GRAUP
Case No.: 23STCP03946
Motion: Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration .
Moving Party: Petitioner Jamra, Jamra & Hanasab, LLP
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Petitioner Jamra, Jamra & Hanasab, LLP’s Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SERVICE:
[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK
[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of April 03, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of April 09, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
BACKGROUND
On October 26, 2023, Petitioner Jamra, Jamra & Hanasab, L.L.P (“Petitioner” or “JJH”) commenced this action by filing a Verified Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration (the “Petition”) against Respondent Jeffrey S. Graup (“Respondent”).
The same day the Petition was filed, on October 26, 2023, the clerk filed a Notice of Hearing on Petition, informing JJH that the hearing for the Petition was set for February 29, 2024, and ordering JJH to give notice of that hearing and file proof of service of that notice.
On February 20, 2024, a substitution of attorney form was filed indicating that Jerry J. Jen of Jen Law Firm substituted in as counsel of record for JJH.
As of February 26, 2024, no proof of service of the Petition or Notice of Hearing had been filed. The Court on its own motion continued the hearing on the Petition to allow Petitioner to electronically file proofs of service of its petition and notice of the Court’s February 29, 2024, Order on Respondent.
No opposition or supporting documents have been filed.
MOVING PARTY POSITION
Petitioner moves to compel Respondent to arbitrate the parties’ fee dispute for legal services JJH allegedly provided to Respondent. Petitioner asserts that the parties entered into an agreement whereby JJH agreed to perform (and Respondent agreed to pay for) legal services for a marriage dissolution case. The retainer agreement stated that if there was any dispute between the parties regarding JJH’s fees, the parties shall submit the issue to binding arbitration.
OPPOSITION
No opposition has been filed.
REPLY
No reply has been filed.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal Standard
“A party who claims that there is a written agreement to arbitrate may petition the superior court for an order to compel arbitration” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356.) “California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.” (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.) “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) A party opposing a petition to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356.)
“[T]he writing memorializing an arbitration agreement need not be signed by both parties in order to be upheld as a binding arbitration agreement.” Serafin v. Balco Properties Ltd., LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 165, 176. “[I]t is not the presence or absence of a signature which is dispositive; it is the presence or absence of evidence of an agreement to arbitrate which matters.” (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 361.)
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.
Where a motion to compel arbitration is granted, a court “shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)
II. Discussion
In its prior order, the Court noted that JJH did not file either a proof of service of the Petition or a proof of service of the Notice of Hearing on Petition. (02/29/24 Minute Order.) For that reason, the Court continued the hearing on the petition to allow Petitioner to properly serve the Respondent and to electronically file proofs of service of “its petition and notice of today’s ruling at least (10) court days before the next scheduled hearing” (Id.)
The Court notes that since issuing its order, the Petitioner has not filed any supporting documents consistent with the Court’s February 29th order.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration.
II. Conclusion
Petitioner Jamra, Jamra & Hanasab, LLP’s Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.