Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC04428, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04428    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 26

Chappell v. Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq., 638)

TENATIVE RULING:

Defendant Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC’s Motions to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action Pending Arbitration are GRANTED.

THE ACTION IS STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION AND AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING STATUS OF ARBITRATION IS SET FOR JULY 3, 2022 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff Erica Chappell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for unfair debt collection practices against Defendant Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on July 26, 2022. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay Proceedings (“the Motions”) on September 2, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion is brought pursuant to California’s arbitration provision, Code of Civil Procedure section 1281, et seq., which states in relevant part: “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a)-(b).)

As with other types of agreements, “[t]he failure of the [party] to carefully read the agreement and the amendment is not a reason to refuse to enforce the arbitration provisions.” (Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1115.) “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’” (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.) The party petitioning to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and party opposing petition must meet the same evidentiary burden to prove any facts necessary to its defense. The trial court acts as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Provencio v. WMA Securities, Inc. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1031.)  If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

Defendant presents evidence that the parties entered into a California Promissory Note and Security Agreement, which contains the following arbitration provision:

Unless otherwise stated in this Arbitration Agreement, any "dispute" between the Borrower, Co-Signer, Co-Owner, Lender, or Lender's assignee (a "Party" or collectively, "the Parties") shall, at any Party' election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration, and not by court of law....

The term "dispute" means and include any action, dispute, claim, or controversy of any kind arising out of, in connection with or in any way related to the Agreement, financing, contracts, origination, servicing, collection, consumer reporting, or any other aspect whatsoever of relationship or conduct of the Parties related to the transaction under this Agreement.

(Motion, Patel Decl., Exh. 1, pp. 5-6.) Defendant’s attempt to meet and confer regarding arbitration were refused by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Motion, Sirey Decl., Exh. A.) This demonstrates the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement and that, despite a meet and confer effort, Plaintiff has not agreed to arbitrate the matter. Due to the lack of any opposition to the instant Motion, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any defense to the enforcement of the arbitration agreement exists.

Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC’s Motions to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action Pending Arbitration are GRANTED.

THE ACTION IS STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION AND AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE STATUS OF ARBITRATION IS SET FOR JULY 3, 2022 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party to give notice.