Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 19NWCV00327, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19NWCV00327    Hearing Date: March 9, 2023    Dept: C

AGULAR v. GUHO

CASE NO.:  19NWCV00327

HEARING:  03/09/23

#6

TENTATIVE ORDER

Cross-Defendant MINISTERIOS UNA VOZ PROFETICA EN LAS NACIONES, INC.’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. CCP § 1281.2. This action as to the Cross-Complaint filed by NICK M. GUHO, INCORPORATED; and BRETT DALE BLAZICEK is STAYED until conclusion of the arbitration.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of March 7, 2023.  

Except for specifically enumerated exceptions, the court must order the petitioner and respondent to arbitrate a controversy if the court finds that a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists. (See CCP §1281.2.) “In California, [g]eneral principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate.” (Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420.) “A petition to compel arbitration or stay proceedings pursuant to CCP §§1281.1 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.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1330.)

The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination. (Engalia v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951.)

The Court finds that Cross-Defendant MINISTERIOS UNA VOZ PROFETICA EN LAS NACIONES, INC. (“Cross-Defendant”) has met the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the Cross-Complainants NICK M. GUHO, INCIRPORATED and BRETT DALE BLAZICEK, dba C&I REAL ESTATE CONSULTING (“Cross-Complainants”) and Cross-Defendant. The Lease dated August 7, 2013 entered into by the parties contains an Arbitration Clause. The Arbitration Clause states, in pertinent part: “Tenant and Landlord 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….” (Amado Decl., Ex. 1.)  

As of March 7, 2023, no Opposition has been filed. The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and absent any Opposition, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.