Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCP00963, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP00963    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 55

SINKLER v. ERETZ LAUREL PROPERTIES, LLC                                       22STCP00963

Hearing Date:  12/9/22,  Dept. 55

#5:   PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Defendant FOUR SEASONS HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTER, LP.

RP:  

Summary

On 3/17/22, Plaintiff (now a self-represented litigant) filed a Complaint alleging that his extensive personal property was stolen by employees while he was an elder resident at defendants’ nursing home.

The causes of action are:

1.      FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE

2.      INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

3.      NEGLIGENCE.

MP Positions

Petitioner requests an order compelling arbitration of this entire case, and dismissing or staying this case, on grounds including the following:

·         During his residency, Plaintiff executed two valid Arbitration Agreements.  The first one was entered into on or about September 26, 2017, and the second was executed on or about December 5, 2017  (petition, ex. A).

·         Both Agreements provide that any claims for injury, harm, or damages arising during Plaintiffs residency at the facility including, but not limited to those for negligence or elder abuse, would be subject to binding arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act.

·         The Arbitration Agreement is not unconscionable.

·         Defendant did not cause any waiver of arbitration.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed petition is granted.

Plaintiff and defendants shall arbitrate the controversies between them, including the entire Complaint, in accordance with their agreements to arbitrate. 

This entire case is dismissed.

Where the Federal Arbitration Act applies, state procedural rules govern the determination of a motion to compel arbitration. Vivid Video Inc. v. Playboy Ent. Group, Inc. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 434, 440.

Parties opposing arbitration have the burden to prove any fact necessary to a defense to arbitration enforcement.  Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.  (2007) 152 Cal.App.4^th 571, 579.

A case can be dismissed on the grounds that all issues are susceptible to arbitration by agreement and plaintiff did not attempt to exhaust arbitration. 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 1199, 1208;  Charles J. Rounds Co. v. Joint Council of Teamsters (1971) 4 Cal.3d 888, 899.