Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV00201, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 22AHCV00201    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

JING SHAO, an individual,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

 

LIPING HUANG, an individual; JACK WEI CHAO, an individual; LINA TA, an individual; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

 

                                            Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 23AHCV00201

Related to 23AHCV00045

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

 

Date:   September 27, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

         

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          This case and related case, Navigators Real Estate, Inc. v. Liping Huang, concern a real estate purchase contract. The real estate is a residence in Monrovia owned by Huang.  Jack Chao and Lina Ta are sued for convincing Huang not to go through with the sale, allegedly wrongly depriving Navigators of an earned commission and depriving Shao of the home he seeks to purchase.

          Shao alleges breach of contract and seeks specific performance as to Huang. He sues Chao and Ta for intentional interference with contractual relation. Shao now seeks an order compelling enforcement of an arbitration agreement contained in the Residential Purchase Agreement between himself and Huang, and “bifurcation” of the arbitration from this action. The motion fails for lack of evidence of an agreement to arbitrate and lack of evidence of Huang’s refusal to arbitrate. But even had such evidence been presented, because Shao’s claims against Huang are intertwined with his claims against Chao and Ta, arbitration would not be appropriate as it could result in conflicting rulings. The motion is denied.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

Code Civ. Proc. §1281 provides: “A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter existing is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.”

Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2 provides that upon petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate and a party’s refusal to submit to arbitration, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement exists, unless it determines that the right to arbitrate has been waived, that grounds exist for revocation, or that a party to the agreement is also party to a pending litigation arising out of the same facts and there exists a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of fact or law.  In such a situation, the court may (1) refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement and order intervention or joinder of all parties in a single action, (2) order intervention or joinder as to all or only certain issues, (3) order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the action pending outcome of arbitration, or (4) stay arbitration pending outcome of the litigation.

          III.     DISCUSSION

          A. No Evidence of Written Agreement to Arbitrate

          When a petition to compel arbitration is “filed and accompanied by prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, the court itself determine whether the agreement exists and, if any defense to its enforcement is raised, whether it is enforceable.” Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 (Rosenthal). “[T]he facts are to be proven by affidavit or declaration and documentary evidence, with oral testimony taken only in the court’s discretion.” Id. at 413-414.

          A party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden of establishing the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate. Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 75 Cal.App.5th 158, 164 [“The burden of persuasion is always on the moving party to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement with the opposing party by a preponderance of the evidence”].

          Shao has offered no evidence in support of this motion. There is simply a copy of a Residential Purchase Agreement tacked onto the motion, with no authenticating declaration. There is also no evidence of Huang’s refusal to arbitrate. As this threshold showing was not made, the burden did not shift to Huang to oppose the motion. The motion is denied on the ground that it lacks an evidentiary basis.

          Even if this burden had been met, the motion would be denied. There are legal and factual issues concerning the Residential Purchase Agreement that are intertwined with legal and factual issues pertaining to Shao’s claims against Ta and Chao. The claims need to be tried together in order to avoid conflicting outcomes.

IV.     ORDER

          Shao’s motion to compel arbitration is denied; and both cases are ordered stayed. Shao is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

         

         

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT