Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00078, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00078    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.         INTRODUCTION

            This is an action alleging violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and Unfair Competition laws. The gist of the action is that Plaintiff Habinek contacted Defendant Charter to have internet service delivered to her home; that Charter was not able to get an internet connection for her despite sending three technicians; but Charter nevertheless billed her $198.39.

            Habinek further alleges that Charter sent the debt to collection agencies, and that this has damaged her credit. Charter seeks an order compelling Habinek to arbitrate. It presents evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate. Habinek did not oppose this motion and, according to Charter, has in fact initiated arbitration. The motion is therefore granted.

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.      ANALYSIS

            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 determines 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.

            Here, the Declaration of Christine Flores, Senior Manager, Legal Services- Litigation at Charter, provides evidence that a written agreement existed between the parties and that it contains an arbitration agreement. The written agreement is attached. Charter has met its burden of proof on the motion.

            The Declaration of Hayley N. Landman, counsel for Charter, states that Habinek’s counsel, Whitney Ackerman, has informed him that Habinek has in fact submitted a request to the American Arbitration Association to initiate arbitration. There is additional information in the Landman Declaration about the communication between counsel and an indication that this motion was filed essentially as a stop-gap measure. Mr. Ackerman was attempting to learn if an AAA arbitrator would have jurisdiction over the request for injunctive relief before stipulating to arbitration and to a stay of this action. Whether or not that has been resolved is unknown. However, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §1281.4, this action is stayed.[1]  

IV.      CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Charter’s motion for an order compelling Habinek to arbitrate her claims against it is granted. This action is stayed pending completion of arbitration.  A post arbitration status conference is scheduled for _________________, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department P. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Dated: ____________                                 ___________________________________

                                                                                  MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                            JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT