Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 25PSCP00119, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25PSCP00119    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Ning Sun v. Allied Physicians of California IPA (DBA Allied Pacific IPA) 

Petitioner Ning Sun’s Petition to Compel Arbitration 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES Petitioner Ning Sun’s petition to compel arbitration. 

             Respondent Allied Physicians of California IPA (DBA Allied Pacific IPA) is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a medical services dispute. On March 5, 2025, petitioner Ning Sun (Petitioner) filed a petition to compel arbitration against respondent Allied Physicians of California IPA (DBA Allied Pacific IPA) (Respondent) concerning a dispute over the provision of medical services. On April 10, 2025, Respondent filed its response. On April 17, 2025, Petitioner replied. 

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 setting forth its terms verbatim. (Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219 (Condee).) 

“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. [Citation.]’” (Ibid.) 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.) 

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

            The Court GRANTS Respondent’s requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 389, 400.) 

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 (Victrola 89).) “[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.) 

Petitioner provided no documentation or language from the purported arbitration agreement that indicates whether the FAA governs the enforcement of this petition to compel arbitration. (See generally, Petition.) Accordingly, the CAA governs this petition by default. (Victrola 89, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 345.) 

Existence of Valid Arbitration Agreement and Covered Claims 

Petitioner seeks to compel arbitration against Respondent based on an arbitration agreement between Petitioner and non-party Health Net (Health Net), which matter was previously ordered to arbitration under LASC Case Number 23PSCV01850. (Petition, Ex. A.) Having quoted the purported arbitration provision at issue, Petitioner has met its initial burden in establishing the existence of an arbitration agreement. (Petition, 5:15-6:15; Condee, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 218; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.) The burden now shifts to Respondent to challenge its validity. (Condee, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 219.) 

Respondent contends the petition is improper because it attempts to mislead the Court and do an end-run around this Court’s prior ruling in LASC Case Number 24PSCV01625, in which case Petitioner alleged the same facts set forth in the petition. Respondent indicates that the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to stay pending arbitration because the Petitioner did not present evidence of an arbitration agreement, and that Petitioner intentionally omitted these facts in bad faith. Respondent contends this petition has forced Respondent to needlessly incur additional costs that has already been briefed and ruled upon. Respondent then contends the petition is improper because it should have been filed in LASC Case Number 24PSCV01625 per Code of Civil Procedure section 1292.4, rather than as a separate matter in this case. 

Respondent further contends there is no written agreement between the parties and the Court already barred Petitioner from asserting a claim for bad faith breach of contract because Petitioner could not plead the existence of a contract. Respondent contends there is no binding contract that obligates Respondent to submit to arbitration, nor did Petitioner provide any evidence of such an agreement. Respondent contends Petitioner did not attach a copy of the contract that purportedly compels Respondent to participate in arbitration, but instead only makes references to inadmissible, unauthenticated, and fragmented contract language that does not compel third parties to the contract to arbitrate disputes brought by the parties to that contract. Respondent also contends the authorities cited by Petitioner do not support the petition. 

The Court agrees with Respondent that the petition was improperly filed in this Court.[1] “If a controversy referable to arbitration under an alleged agreement is involved in an action or proceeding pending in a superior court, a petition for an order to arbitrate shall be filed in such action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1292.4, italics added.) LASC Case Number 24PSCV01625 involves the same parties and issues, i.e., Petitioner and Respondent vis-à-vis the provision of medical services for Petitioner’s cancer treatment over the past ten years or so in connection with the Health Net contract. (See generally, Petition; Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 1.) Petitioner should have filed the petition in LASC Case Number 24PSCV01625. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the petition to compel arbitration. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Petitioner Ning Sun’s petition to compel arbitration. 

             Respondent Allied Physicians of California IPA (DBA Allied Pacific IPA) is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.