Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01667, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01667, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01667 Hearing Date: October 10, 2023 Dept: C

MA TERESA VEGA AVILA v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01667

HEARING: 10/10/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

GRANT THE MOTION.

Moving parties to give notice.

Plaintiff Ma Teresa Vega Avila aka Teresa Zaragoza (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, alleging causes of action for: (1) premises liability; and (2) medical negligence. The complaint arises from alleged injuries that Plaintiff sustained due to a slip and fall at Kaiser Hospital in Downey, California on December 24, 2021.

On August 18, 2023, Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) filed and served a petition for an order compelling arbitration and move to stay this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 1281.2 and 1281.4.

In support of the petition, Moving Defendants contend that: (1) where the parties have a written agreement to arbitrate, California law requires that they be ordered to arbitrate their disputes; (2) Plaintiff’s claims fall within the ambit of the parties’ arbitration agreement; and (3) this action should be stayed pending arbitration.

On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Non-Opposition to Moving Defendants’ petition to compel arbitration. The failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has conceded to Moving Defendants’ arguments raised in the petition.

Legal Standard

Parties may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute upon the court finding that: (1) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) said agreement covers the controversy or controversies in the parties’ dispute.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) California law favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.) A party petitioning to compel arbitration has the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate and the party opposing the petition has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to its defense. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356-357.)¿

“If a court of competent jurisdiction . . . has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, 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 an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (CCP § 1281.4.)

Issue No.1: Existence of a Written Agreement to Arbitrate

Moving Defendants contend that the parties to this action have a binding written agreement to arbitrate the present dispute.

In assessing whether an agreement to arbitrate exists, the moving party bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842.) The trial court sits as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, and any oral testimony the court may receive at its discretion, to reach a final determination. (Ibid.)

Moving Defendants present the declaration of Danny Harris Covarrubio (“Covarrubio”) in support of the petition who declares that: (1) Plaintiff enrolled as a Kaiser Permanente Senior Advantage member of Health Plan effective March 1, 2013 (Covarrubio Decl., ¶ 3); (2) Plaintiff enrolled as a Kaiser Permanente Senior Advantage Medicare Medi-Cal Special Needs (SNP) member effective May 1, 2023 (Id.); and (3) Plaintiff was continuously enrolled as a Medicare Senior Advantage Health Plan member from that date through the present (Id., ¶ 3 and Exhibit B). Moving Defendants present evidence through the declaration of Nancy Garcia (“Garcia”) that Plaintiff is bound by an arbitration agreement as a result of her enrollment as a Senior Advantage member of Health Plan. (Garcia Decl., ¶ 2; Garcia Decl., Exhibit A at pp. 220-224.) Moving Defendants present evidence that Plaintiff was given the opportunity to opt-out of the arbitration agreement and that Plaintiff did not opt-out of the arbitration agreement. (Covarrubio Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit E; Decl. of Judy Tome, ¶¶ 2-3 and Exhibits E and F.)

Here, the Court finds that Moving Defendants have met their burden in showing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The declarations presented by Moving Defendants in support of the petition evidence a written agreement to arbitrate.

Issue No.2: Scope of Plaintiff’s Claims

Moving Defendants contend that the arbitration agreement covers Plaintiff’s claims.

Where contracts provide arbitration for any controversy arising out of or relating to the contract, the courts have held such arbitration agreements sufficiently broad to include tort, as well as contractual, liabilities so long as the tort claims have their roots in the relationship between the parties which was created by the contract. (Tate v. Saratoga Savings & Loan Assn. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 843, 855.) Doubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration. (United Transportation Union v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 804, 808.) The Court should order parties to arbitrate unless it is clear that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to cover the dispute. (Ibid.)

Here, the arbitration agreement states that claims arising “from or [relating] to an alleged violation of duty incident to or arising out of . . . a member Party’s relationship to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Health Plan) including any claim for medical or hospital malpractice . . . for premises liability, or relating to the coverage for, or delivery of, services or items, irrespective of the legal theories upon which the claim is asserted.” (Garcia Decl., Exhibit A at p. 221.) The complaint alleges negligence on the part of Defendants as well as a claim for premises liability. Thus, the arbitration agreement covers the causes of action asserted in the complaint.

Therefore, the Court finds that the claims asserted in the complaint come within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The Court therefore GRANTS Moving Defendants’ petition to compel arbitration. The Court STAYS this action pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4 pending the completion of arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement.