TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Beverly Hills Beauty Lab LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Appointment of Arbitrator is DENIED.

Defendant Beverly Hills Beauty Lab LLC to give notice.

REASONING

Defendant Beverly Hills Beauty Lab LLC (“Defendant”) moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff Rya Thomas (“Plaintiff”) to submit her claims to arbitration and to stay the action until the conclusion of arbitration. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground that the arbitration clause was a contract of adhesion, the agreement was not within Plaintiff’s reasonable expectations, it was unduly oppressive, Plaintiff’s negligent hiring claim falls outside the scope of the agreement, and Defendant has waived its right to compel arbitration. The Court notes that Defendant takes issue with the timeliness of Plaintiff’s opposition, but the Court considers the opposition in the interest of resolving this motion on its merits.  

“[I]n considering a . . . petition to compel arbitration, a trial court must make the preliminary determinations whether there is an agreement to arbitrate and whether the petitioner is a party to that agreement (or can otherwise enforce the agreement).” (M & M Foods, Inc. v. Pac. Am. Fish Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 554, 559; see also Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284 (Giuliano) [“petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence”].) In deciding a petition to compel arbitration, trial courts must first decide whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine whether plaintiff’s claims are covered by the agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, a defense to enforcement of the agreement. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281 states, “A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides, in relevant part:

On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that:

(a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or

(b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.

(c) A party to the arbitration is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party . . . .

“The right to arbitration depends upon contract; a petition to compel arbitration is simply a suit in equity seeking specific performance of that contract.” (Eng’rs & Architects Ass’n v. Cmty. Dev. Dep’t (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 644, 653.) General principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate. (Chan v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 632, 640-641 [“The existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate involves general contract principles”].)

On May 21, 2021, Plaintiff signed an Arbitration Agreement between Plaintiff and a party identified as “Dr Steven Rosenblatt MD, PhD, 11600 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90025.” (Mot., Ex. A.) First, the agreement has not been authenticated in any way, as Defendant has simply attached the agreement as an exhibit to its motion, such that the Court cannot conclude this is reliable evidence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Second, even if the agreement had been properly authenticated, the agreement does not mention Defendant in any manner. If the individual identified as Dr. Steven Rosenblatt is connected to Defendant in some way, that has not been set forth in the motion, as Defendant states only that “is the scheduling service for a clinic” where co-defendant Jane Doe performed the laser hair removal procedure at issue in this action. (Mot., p. 3, ll. 7-8.)

Moreover, the agreement simply refers to “[t]he parties” without identifying who is a party to this agreement. The Court can assume that Plaintiff is a party to the agreement, and Dr. Steven Rosenblatt is a party to the agreement, but the Court cannot conclude that Defendant was a party to this agreement and thus has a basis to move to compel arbitration. Plaintiff states only that she “entered into an agreement with Defendant for laser hair removal procedures” on May 21, 2021 (Opp’n, Shakhbazyan Decl. ¶ 3), but it is not clear if this agreement provided by Defendant is that agreement, and if it is, it remains unclear how Defendant is a party to any such agreement. Plaintiff has not brought an action against Dr. Steven Rosenblatt, and it is not clear to the Court why this agreement has been presented as a basis for Defendant to compel arbitration. If Defendant has a basis to move to compel arbitration as a nonsignatory, that basis should have been set forth in the motion.

Put simply, the Court lacks a basis to conclude that an agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties, that Defendant was a party to any such agreement, or that Defendant has any other basis to enforce such an agreement. Thus, the Court need not consider the other arguments as to enforceability of any such agreement. Accordingly, Defendant Beverly Hills Beauty Lab LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Appointment of Arbitrator is DENIED.