Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03617, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03617    Hearing Date: October 29, 2024    Dept: C

Flexi-Van Leasing, LLC vs 26 Center Distribution LLC

Case No.: 23NWCV03617

Hearing Date: October 29, 2024 @ 10:30 a.m.

#7

Tentative Ruling

Defendant 26 Center Distribution LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.  The case is STAYED pending completion of arbitration. 

Defendant to give notice.

Background

This is a collections action. In a Complaint filed on November 8, 2023, Plaintiff Flexi-Van Leasing, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that within the past four years Defendant 26 Center Distribution, LLC (“Defendant”) “became indebted to Plaintiff in the agreed sum of $44,969.00 for goods and/or services rendered” and Defendant agreed to pay said amount to plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶5.) No part of said sum has been paid. (Id., ¶6.)

On December 22, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer. On January 7, 2024, Defendant attempted to meet and confer regarding arbitration, but did not receive a meaningful response. (Farivar Decl., ¶8, Ex. D.) 

Defendant moves to compel arbitration on the grounds that all claims alleged in the Complaint are subject to arbitration pursuant to the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement between the parties. 

As October 25, 2024, the motion is unopposed.

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.¿(Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004)¿118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) A party moving 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.)

Discussion

Defendant asserts that the parties executed a Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (“Agreement”) which contains an arbitration clause. Plaintiff expressed acceptance of the arbitration clause by executing the Agreement and initialing each page.

The arbitration clause, found in Section H of the Agreement, provides in part:

“Invoiced Party shall advise Invoicing Party in writing of any disputed items on invoices within 30 days of the receipt of such invoice(s), documenting with appropriate evidence, its disagreement with any of Invoicing Party’s bills it believes to be incorrect. Invoicing Party will respond in writing to such disputed items within 30 days of receipt of Invoiced Party’s notice with its decision to accept or deny the Invoice Party’s dispute. The Invoiced Party will have 15 days from the date of the Invoicing Party’s response to either pay the claim(s) or seek arbitration. Such disputes do not constitute valid grounds for withholding or delaying payments of undisputed charges as required by the Terms of this Agreement. [Revised 06/13/16]

Should no resolution be reached between the Parties for charges disputed within the applicable dispute resolution process, then the Parties will have the ability to submit the disputed charges for binding arbitration in accordance with Exhibit D of the Agreement. Prior to the commencement of binding arbitration, both Parties are expected to take every reasonable effort to resolve the dispute. Following the initiation of binding arbitration, the arbitration panel will determine the Party responsible for payment based on the specific facts and circumstances associated with the claim, the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the Provider’s Addendum along with the supporting documentation presented by the involved Parties. [Revised 4/23/21]” (Bouzaglou Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1, Section H, ¶¶1- 2, emphasis ommitted.) There is an Exhibit to the Binding Arbitration Process Guidelines.  The Exhibit states in relevant part: “Disputes handled under the arbitration process will be mandatory and binding upon the Parties. The arbitration process will be administered exclusively by IANA.” (Bouzaglou Decl., ¶3, Ex. 1, Ex. D., ¶2.)

Based on the above, the Court determines that Defendant has met its burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement which covers the subject of this lawsuit.  The motion is unopposed. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.  The case is STAYED pending completion of arbitration.