Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01105, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01105, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01105 Hearing Date: May 11, 2023 Dept: C

MARTINEZ v. RIVIERA SANATARIUM, INC.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01105

HEARING: 05/11/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants’ RIVIERA SANITARIUM, INC.; and KENT STEPHENS’ motion to compel arbitration is DENIED. CCP § 1281.2.

Opposing Party to give notice.

A brief procedural history of this action is as follows: On March 15, 2022, SANTOS VALIENTE GALEANO, by and through his Successor-in-Interest (“Decedent”) filed an underlying action against Defendant for negligence and elder abuse/willful misconduct (Case No: 22STCV09160). The underlying action was compelled into arbitration on June 15, 2022 per stipulation of the parties. Decedent died on August 24, 2017. On October 25, 2022, Plaintiffs, as the surviving heirs and/or successors in interest of Decedent filed the instant action for wrongful death.

The Court notes that the instant case and the underlying case were deemed not related on November 7, 2022.

Defendant now moves to compel the instant action into arbitration.

In Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they are not bound by the Arbitration Agreement entered into by Decedent and Defendant, which was only signed by Max Valiente, and that claims for wrongful death and willful misconduct are not subject to the Arbitration Agreement.

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.) “California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Christensen v. Dewor Developments (1983) 33 Cal.3d 778, 782.)

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.)

In support of the instant Motion, Defendant the Arbitration Agreement executed by Defendant and Max Valiente (on behalf of Decedent). The Arbitration Agreement states “BY SIGNING THIS CONTRACT YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY ISSUE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AND YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY OR COURT TRIAL…. [¶] By virtue of Resident’s consent, instruction and/or durable power of attorney, I hereby certify that I am authorized to act as Resident’s agent in executing and delivering of this arbitration agreement.” (Eng. Decl., Ex. A.)

As indicated above, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should deny Defendant’s petition to compel arbitration because Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim is not subject to arbitration where none of the Plaintiffs (except for Max Valiente) signed any the Arbitration Agreements at issue. This argument is well-taken.

In Ruiz v. Podolsky, the California Supreme Court held that non-signatories to an arbitration agreement must arbitrate their wrongful death claims against a health care provider when the decedent signed an agreement consenting to arbitrate their medical malpractice claims pursuant to CCP §1295, the wrongful death claims are based on medical malpractice, and the arbitration agreement was intended to bind wrongful death claimants. (Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, 849-854.)

Here, this action is distinguishable from the facts of Ruiz because, here, Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim is not predicated on medical malpractice. (See Bush v. Horizon West (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 924, 929.) Rather, Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim is predicated on willful misconduct as defined in the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.

Since not all Plaintiffs signed the Arbitration Agreements, they are third parties to the Agreements and cannot be compelled to arbitrate their wrongful death claim against Defendant. (See Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 647, 680-686.)

The motion to compel arbitration is DENIED. The Court notes that Defendant is not foreclosed from seeking a stay in abatement.