Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 21NWCV00512, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00512, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00512 Hearing Date: September 28, 2023 Dept: C

CITIBANK N.A. v. AVETISIAN

CASE NO.: 21NWCV00512

HEARING: 09/28/23

Defendant (in pro per) ROBERT AVETISIAN’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give notice.

Plaintiff Citibank filed this lawsuit to collect a debt from Defendant.

Except for specifically enumerated exceptions, the court must order the parties 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.)

Here, Defendant urges this Court to enforce an arbitration agreement, seemingly located within the credit card agreement entered into by the parties. However, no Arbitration Agreement is attached to the Complaint or this Motion. Further, neither the terms of the purported Arbitration Agreement, nor its relevant provisions are recited in the Complaint or this Motion. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s lack of substantive opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court cannot conclude, based on the evidence provided, that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties.

The Motion is DENIED.