Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV36838, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV36838    Hearing Date: September 8, 2023    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Gianna Breliant,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

19STCV36838

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Arent Fox LLP and Larson O’Brien LLP,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: September 8, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Vacate Arbitration and Reinstate Action

Moving Party: Plaintiff Gianna Breliant

Responding Party: Defendant Arent Fox LLP

 

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

 

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

 

BACKGROUND

               

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff Gianna Breliant filed the operative third amended complaint against Defendants Arent Fox LLP and Larson O’Brien LLP, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) legal malpractice; and (3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. This action arises out of Defendants’ representation of Plaintiff in litigation relating to the alleged wrongful death of her daughter by heroin overdose.

 

On October 7, 2020, the Court granted Defendant Arent Fox LLP’s motion to compel arbitration.

 

ANALYSIS

 

Plaintiff moves for an order vacating arbitration and reinstating this action in Superior Court. Plaintiff asserts Defendant Arent Fox LLP has refused to participate in the arbitration process, waiving its right to arbitrate. Plaintiff filed an arbitration demand with AAA on January 9, 2023 under AAA’s consumer arbitration rules. Plaintiff represents that Defendant has refused to arbitrate under the consumer rules, resulting in AAA closing the file. In opposition, Defendant asserts the commercial rules should apply.

 

The Court will not vacate arbitration. Plaintiff has cited no authority allowing the Court to do so and Defendant has not “waived” the right to arbitrate by disputing which AAA rules should apply. It is not the Court’s responsibility to determine which AAA rules should apply.

 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.