Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV01993, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01993    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Kin K. Chu v. Dr. Michelle Kim, MD, et al. 

Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group’s Petition to Compel Arbitration 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS the petition to compel arbitration. The Court STAYS this action pending completion of the arbitration. 

            Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a medical malpractice action. On June 20, 2024, plaintiff Kin K. Chu (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Dr. Michelle Kim, MD, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Southern California Permanente Medical Group (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 through 50, alleging one cause of action for medical malpractice. 

On November 1, 2024, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (collectively, Moving Parties) filed a petition to compel arbitration. The petition 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.) A party seeking to compel arbitration meets their initial burden of establishing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by attaching a copy to the motion or petition to compel arbitration. (Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1060 (Espejo).) 

“California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.) “This strong policy has resulted in the general rule that 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.” (Ibid. [internal quotations omitted].) This is in accord with the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which governs all agreements to arbitrate in contracts involving interstate commerce. (9 U.S.C. § 2, et seq.; Higgins v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.) 

DISCUSSION 

FAA v. CAA

“[T]he FAA's procedural provisions do not apply unless the contract contains a choice-of-law clause expressly incorporating them. [T]he question is not whether the parties adopted the CAA’s procedural provisions: The state's procedural statutes apply by default because Congress intended the comparable FAA sections to apply in federal court. The question, therefore, is whether the parties expressly incorporated the FAA’s procedural provisions into their agreements.” (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 345, internal citations omitted and italics in original.) “[P]revious cases have held that when an arbitration agreement provides that its ‘enforcement’ shall be governed by California law, the [CAA] governs a party's motion to compel arbitration. It follows that when an agreement provides that its ‘enforcement’ shall be governed by the FAA, the FAA governs a party's motion to compel arbitration.” (Id., at p. 346.) 

The Court did not find any language in the subject arbitration agreement indicating that the FAA governs the enforcement of this petition to compel arbitration. Accordingly, the CAA applies by default. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 345.) 

Existence of Valid Arbitration Agreement and Covered Claims 

            Moving Parties seek to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim based on a contract Kaiser Health Plan, Inc. has with the federal government that provides health care for federal employees like Plaintiff. (Petition, Exs. A, B, D.) The arbitration agreement upon which Moving Parties seek to compel arbitration reads as follows: 

If you have any claim or dispute that is not governed by the Disputed Claims Process with OPM described in Section 8, then all such claims and disputes of any nature between you and the Plan, including but not limited to malpractice claims, shall be resolved by binding arbitration, subject to the Plan’s Arbitration procedures. For information that describes the arbitration process, contact our Member Service Call Center at 800-464-4000 for copies of our requirements. These will explain how you can begin the binding arbitration process. 

(Petition, Ex. A, p. 198 of pdf, Ex. B, p. 349 of pdf, italics added.) 

            By attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement to the petition, Moving Parties have met their moving burden to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. (Petition, Exs. A, B; Espejo, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1060.) The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to challenge the validity of the arbitration provision. 

            Plaintiff did not oppose the petition. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to challenge the validity of the arbitration provision. 

The Court further finds that Moving Parties have shown the arbitration agreement covers Plaintiff’s claims because it specifically includes medical malpractice claims. (Petition, Ex. A, p. 198 of pdf, Ex. B, p. 349 of pdf.) 

Accordingly, the Court finds Moving Parties have established the existence of a valid arbitration agreement that covers Plaintiff’s claims, and are therefore entitled to an order compelling arbitration and staying this action pending arbitration. 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the petition to compel arbitration, and stays this action pending completion of the arbitration. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the petition to compel arbitration. The Court STAYS this action pending completion of the arbitration. 

            Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.