Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00036047-CU-MM-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 18, 2024

04/19/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Medical Malpractice Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00036047-CU-MM-CTL PAULE VS PARADISE VALLEY HEALTH CARE CENTER INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Paradise Valley Health Care Center Inc. and Providence Group Inc.'s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Maria Paule (individually and as successor-in-interest to Julita Paule) to arbitration is GRANTED.

'The party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance any fact necessary to its defense.' (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1157.) 'With respect to the moving party's burden to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court.' (Baker, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 1160.) 'Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges.' (Ibid.) Here, Defendants presented a copy of an 'Arbitration Agreement' requiring arbitration of 'any dispute as to medical malpractice' and 'any and all other disputes, controversies, demands, or claims that relate to or arise out of the provision of services by the Facility to Resident, including, but not limited to, any action for injury or death arising from negligence, wrongful death, intentional tort, or statutory causes of action, including, but not limited to, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act . . . and Health and Safety Code Section 1430.' (¶¶ 1–2.) 'Facility' is defined broadly and includes not only Paradise Valley Healthcare Inc., but also its 'owners, operators, officers, directors, administrators, staff, employees, agents, management companies, and any and all predecessors, successors in interests, and assigns.' This includes both defendants. (See Compl. ¶¶ 15–16, 18–22.) 'Resident' is defined as Julita Paule. The agreement states that it is also 'binding on all parties, including the Resident's personal representatives, agents, executors, family members, successors in interest, and heirs,' and that any such individuals 'who execute this agreement below as the 'Resident's Agent' are doing so not only in their representative capacity for the Resident, but also in their individual capacity.' (¶ 7.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3063093  55 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PAULE VS PARADISE VALLEY HEALTH CARE CENTER INC  37-2023-00036047-CU-MM-CTL The Admissions Coordinator (Margarito Lee) declares that she met with both Maria and Julita, and after explaining the arbitration agreement, Julita 'designated her daughter to sign the Arbitration Agreement, claiming that she had difficulty with her eyesight and preferred that her daughter review and sign the Arbitration Agreement.' Maria then signed the agreement as directed by Julita. This sequence of events is undisputed. (Compare Lopez v. Bartlett Care Center LLC (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 311, 317–320 [substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that skilled nursing care facility resident's daughter lacked authority to sign arbitration agreement on behalf of mother where daughter contradicted the declaration of the facility's representative and declared that she signed the agreement outside the presence of her mother and without her mother's authorization].) This is a sufficient prima facie showing of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate the instant dispute.

The burden therefore shifts to Maria to raise a defense.

Maria did not file an opposition. As such, she necessarily failed to meet her burden and concedes the merits of the motion. (Super. Ct. San Diego County, Local Rules, rule 2.1.19.B.) Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is granted. The parties are directed to arbitrate in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement. The case is stayed pending arbitration.

The court sets a status conference for October 18, 2024 at 10:00am.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3063093  55