TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Meyer, Olson, Lowy & Meyers, LLP’s Verified Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration and for Court Appointment of an Arbitrator is GRANTED.   The parties shall submit four proposed arbitrators to the Court.  An Arbitrator shall thereafter be randomly drawn and appointed by the Court to arbitrate this action. The proceedings are hereby stayed pending conclusion of arbitration.

Petitioner Meyer, Olson, Lowy & Meyers, LLP to give notice. 

REASONING

Petitioner Meyer, Olson, Lowy & Meyers, LLP (“Petitioner”) moves to compel Respondent Dominique Harris (“Respondent”) to submit to arbitration pursuant to a written agreement wherein Petitioner agreed to perform legal services for Respondent in connection with parentage proceedings. Petitioner represents that paragraph 13 of the written agreement between the parties and a separate letter signed by Respondent on September 14, 2020 require the parties to submit to binding arbitration if there is any disagreement or dispute between the parties concerning fees, and a dispute has arisen between the parties regarding the fees due, but Respondent failed to respond after Petitioner sent a Notice of Right to Arbitrate. The petition is unopposed.

“[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 September 14, 2020, Respondent entered into the agreement for Petitioner to provide Respondent with legal services in connection with parentage proceedings. (Pet., Ex. A.) Paragraph 13 on page 7 of the agreement letter for legal services states that “[a]ll disputes between [Petitioner and Respondent] regarding any aspect of our attorney-client relationship will be resolved by binding arbitration,” and “[t]his provision applies to all disputes whether they are about financial matters (fees and costs) or about the quality of our services (malpractice).” (Ibid.) Attached to the letter agreement was an explanatory letter, identified in paragraph 13, which further described the arbitration clause and its effect. (Ibid.) Both the letter agreement and attached explanatory letter are signed by Respondent. (Ibid.)

Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, the existence of an arbitration agreement which may be invoked by Petitioner against Respondent and that the dispute regarding fees due to Petitioner is covered by the agreement. Because Respondent has failed to oppose this petition, the Court has no grounds upon which it may conclude that there is a defense to enforcement of this provision.

The agreement does not provide the method of selecting an arbitrator, nor does the letter attached to the agreement. Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 states as follows:

If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.

Petitioner asks the Court to appoint one of four named arbitrators as the arbitrator of this action.

Accordingly, Petitioner Meyer, Olson, Lowy & Meyers, LLP’s Verified Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration and for Court Appointment of an Arbitrator is GRANTED.  The parties shall submit four proposed arbitrators to the Court.  An Arbitrator shall thereafter be randomly drawn and appointed by the Court to arbitrate this action. The proceedings are hereby stayed pending conclusion of arbitration.