Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV41403, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV41403    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff Melissa Corral (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Summer Loren Schoof, Craig Clayton Schoof, Wende Wilkins Schoof (“Defendants”), and DOES 1 to 30, inclusive for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence. The Complaint alleges that on or about January 25, 2018, Defendants negligently struck Plaintiff’s vehicle, resulting in Plaintiff sustaining bodily injuries and damages.

On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Arbitration against a nonparty, Farmers Insurance (“Respondent”). On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Motion to Compel Arbitration. An opposition was due on December 1, 2023. As of December 11, 2023, Respondent has not filed an opposition.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such 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 the revocation of the agreement.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2(a)-(b).)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence.  (Fagelbaum & Heller LLP v. Smylie (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1363.) Courts “use general principles of California contract law to determine the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.” (Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Associates v. Beta Healthcare Group (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1153.)

Once the moving party alleges that an arbitration agreement exists, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove the falsity of the purported agreement. (Condee v. Longwood Mgt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)

“If an application has been made to a court . . . for an order to arbitrate a controversy . . . the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

“The policy or an endorsement added thereto shall provide that the determination as to whether the insured shall be legally entitled to recover damages, and if so entitled, the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured and the insurer or, in the event of disagreement, by arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator. An award or a judgment confirming an award shall not be conclusive on any party in any action or proceeding between (i) the insured, his or her insurer, his or her legal representative, or his or her heirs and (ii) the uninsured motorist to recover damages arising out of the accident upon which the award is based.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 11580.2(f).)

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Respondent to arbitrate this matter. Plaintiff contends that she is the owner of a 2008 BMW 328i insured by Respondent. Plaintiff further contends that the policy contained $30,000.00 uninsured motorist’s coverage and $30,000.00 underinsured motorists coverage. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that she and Respondent are unable to agree as to whether she is legally entitled to recover damages for bodily injuries sustained in the January 25, 2018, automobile accident and the amount thereof. As such, Plaintiff argues that controversy exists between her and Respondent, which is required to be determined by arbitration under the terms of the insurance policy Plaintiff has with Respondent. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Respondent denies arbitration of the underinsured claim and refuses to arbitrate.

Plaintiff has provided the declaration page of her insurance policy with Respondent and the email exchange between the parties’ legal counsel. However, Plaintiff did not submit the actual policy and endorsements to the insurance policy that likely contains the purported arbitration clause. Thus, Plaintiff fails to meet her initial burden of proof that a valid arbitration agreement exists. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration is denied.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 14^th day of December 2023