Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV03712, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03712    Hearing Date: June 25, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff Benchmark Insurance (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Larrabure Framing, Inc. (“Larrabure”) and Does 1-25 for subrogation reimbursement. 

On November 18, 2022, Larrabure filed an answer. 

On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant M W L Solutions, Inc. (“MWL”) as Doe 1. 

On August 3, 2023, MWL filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Larrabure and Moes 1-25 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. 

On December 22, 2023, Larrabure filed an answer to MWL’s cross-complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants MWL and Roes 1-25 for express indemnity, implied indemnity, negligence, allocation and contribution, and declaratory relief.  On February 20, 2024, MWL filed an answer to Larrabure’s cross-complaint. 

On May 17, 2024, Larrabure filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings to be heard on June 25, 2024.  MWL has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is currently set for December 17, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Larrabure asks the Court to compel arbitration of the dispute between Larrabure and MWL. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“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 rescission of any contract.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides in 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 to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that 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 rescission of the agreement." 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a), (b).) 

“Arbitration is a favored procedure. An ‘ “ ‘arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.’ ” ’ ” (Salgado v. Carrows Restaurants, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 356, 360, quoting Cruise v. Kroger Co. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 390, 397.) “Doubts about the applicability of the arbitration clause to the dispute should be resolved ‘in favor of sending the parties to arbitration.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 625, 642.) 

DISCUSSION         

A.   The complaint 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following: 

On or about January 6, 2021, at a construction site located at or near 1000 W. Temple Street in Los Angeles, CA 90007 (“the premises”), Larrabure and Does 1-25 (“Defendants”) negligently and carelessly constructed, inspected, maintained, contracted, subcontracted, engineered, designed, owned or controlled the premises and/or failed to properly train, direct, supervise or coordinate its employees and operations, causing a piece of 2"x10" wood framing to fall from above and strike Jose Ramos Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) in the head and causing him to sustain serious injuries while in the course of his employment with Ocean Park Mechanical, Inc. 

Plaintiff Benchmark Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) was and is authorized to write workers’ compensation insurance in California by and through its third-party administrator, Benchmark Administrators.  Plaintiff insured Ocean Park Mechanical, Inc. against liability to its employees for compensation benefits under California's workers’ compensation laws. 

As the result of Defendants’ negligence and Gonzalez’s resulting injuries, Plaintiff has been obligated to pay and has paid workers’ compensation benefits to and/or on behalf of Gonzalez.  As a result of Plaintiff’s obligation to pay workers’ compensation benefits, Plaintiff is subrogated to Ocean Park Mechanical, Inc.’s rights with respect to all payments made for medical and related expenses and for compensation payments made to or on behalf of Gonzalez up through the time of trial. 

B.   MWL’s cross-complaint 

MWL’s cross-complaint alleges the following: 

If MWL is found responsible to Plaintiff or to anyone else as a result of the incidents and occurrences described in Plaintiff's complaint, MWL’s liability would be based solely on a derivative form of liability resulting not from MWL’s conduct but from an obligation imposed on MWL by law.  Therefore, MWL would be entitled to complete indemnity from Larrabure and Moes 1-25. 

If MWL is judged liable to Plaintiff, Larrabure and Moes 1-25 should be required: (1) to pay a share of Plaintiff's judgment which is in proportion to the comparative negligence of Larrabure and Moes 1-25 in causing Plaintiff's damages, and (2) to reimburse MWL for any payments it makes to Plaintiff in excess of its proportional share of the negligence of Larrabure and Moes 1-25. 

An actual controversy exists between the parties concerning their respective rights and duties because MWL contends and Larrabure and Moes 1-25 dispute that Larrabure and Moes 1-25 are liable for causing the damages alleged in Plaintiff's complaint. 

C.   Larrabure’s motion to compel arbitration 

Larrabure moves to compel arbitration of MWL’s cross-complaint.  Larrabure asserts that a May 5, 2019 subcontract between Larrabure and MWL obligated MWL (1) to provide the labor for Larrabure's scope of work at the construction site, (2) to add Larrabure as an additional insured under MWL's insurance policy, and (3) to indemnity Larrabure from "claims, demands, causes of actions and liabilities of every kind and nature whatsoever arising out of or in connection with Subcontractor's operations performed under this Agreement." 

The subcontract’s dispute resolution provision stated that "the parties hereto shall submit any and all disputes arising under or relating to the terms and conditions of the Subcontract to arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association." 

Larrabure contends that MWL has refused to submit the dispute between Larrabure and MWL to arbitration, instead filing a cross-complaint against Larrabure on August 3, 2023. 

Larrabure has presented evidence that triggers the subcontract’s arbitration provision.  MWL has presented no opposing evidence.  The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Larrabure Framing, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration.  The Court orders Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Larrabure Framing, Inc. and Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant M W L Solutions, Inc. to arbitrate their dispute. 

The Court stays proceedings on the cross-complaints filed by Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant Larrabure Framing, Inc. and Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant M W L Solutions, Inc. pending the outcome of arbitration. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.