Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 24SMCP00044, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCP00044, Date: 2024-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCP00044 Hearing Date: June 12, 2024 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Meyer, Olson, Lowy & Meyers LLP, v. Muhlhauser

CASE NO.: 24SMCP00044

MOTION: Petition to Compel Arbitration

HEARING DATE: 6/12/2024

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California and federal law, public policy favors arbitration as an efficient and less expensive means of resolving private disputes. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 8-9; AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 339.) Accordingly, whether an agreement is governed by the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”) or the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), courts resolve doubts about an arbitration agreement’s scope in favor of arbitration. (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at 9; Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assocs. (9th Cir. 2009) 553 F.3d 1277, 1284; see also Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-972 [“California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability [citation] and a requirement that an arbitration agreement must be enforced on the basis of state law standards that apply to contracts in general”].) “[U]nder both the FAA and California law, ‘arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’ ” (Higgins v. Superior Crout (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1247.)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a trial court to grant a petition to compel arbitration if the court determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.” (Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 50, 59, quotations omitted.) Accordingly, “when presented with a petition to compel arbitration, the court’s first task is to determine whether the parties have in fact agreed to arbitrate the dispute.” (Ibid.) A petition to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Id. at 71.) As with any other specific performance claim, “a party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement must show the agreement’s terms are sufficiently definite to enable the court to know what it is to enforce.” (Ibid. [internal citations omitted].) “Only the valid and binding agreement of the parties, including all material terms well-defined and clearly expressed, may be ordered specifically performed.” (Ibid.) An arbitration agreement “must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.” (Civ. Code, § 1636.) The language of the contract governs its interpretation if it is clear and explicit. (Civ. Code, § 1368.) If uncertainty exists, “the language of a contract should be interpreted most strongly against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist.” (Civ. Code, § 1654.)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.) It would then be plaintiff’s burden, in opposing the motion, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to her opposition. (See Ibid.) “In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Ibid.)

ANALYSIS

Petitioner Meyer, Olson, Lowy & Meyers LLP (MOLM) petitions the court to compel binding arbitration against Respondent Stefanie Muhlhauser.

As with any contract, mutual assent or consent is necessary for the formation of a valid arbitration agreement. (Civ. Code, §§ 1550, 1565.) “Consent is not mutual, unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.” (Civ. Code, § 1580.) The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence. (Mitri v. Arnel Mgmt. Co. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1169 [“Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.”].)

MOLM meets its burden to show the existence of a valid arbitration agreement covering disputes over legal fees between itself and Respondent. MOLM presents a verified petition for arbitration. MOLM alleges that on July 13, 2021, Respondent and MOLM entered into a written contract whereby it agreed to perform various legal services for Respondent in connection with a dissolution of marriage action, and domestic violence matters. (Pet. ¶2, Ex. A.) Paragraph 13 of the retainer (Ex. A) and a separate letter signed by Respondent on July 5, 2021, provides that if there is any disagreement or dispute between the parties concerning fees, the parties agree to submit such dispute to binding arbitration. (Id., ¶3.) A dispute over fees and costs apparently arose. On September 21, 2023, MOLM sent a notice of Respondent’s right to arbitrate, demanding payment of the outstanding balance for fees/costs for professional services in the amount of $155,866.23. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. B.)

There is no opposition. Respondent therefore fails to present any defense to the arbitration agreement.

Accordingly, the petition is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 provides that “[i]f the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.”

When a petition is made to the court to appoint a neutral arbitrator, the court shall nominate five persons from lists of persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration or obtained from a governmental agency concerned with arbitration or private disinterested association concerned with arbitration. The parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may within five days of receipt of notice of the nominees from the court jointly select the arbitrator whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees. If the parties fail to select an arbitrator within the five-day period, the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees.”

The Court therefore sets an OSC Re: Appointment of Arbitrator for June 27, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. The Court nominates the following retired Judges to act as Arbitrator: a) Hon. Hank Goldberg, b) Hon. Scott Gordon, c) Hon. Margo Hoyt, d) Hon. Thomas Trent Lewis, or e) Hon. Roy Paul. The parties are ordered to meet and confer within 5 days and jointly select an arbitrator. The parties shall submit a joint brief on their selection(s) at least 3 court days prior to the OSC hearing. If the parties are unable to agree on an arbitrator, the Court will select from one of the five arbitrators above.