Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV16872, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16872    Hearing Date: December 13, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 13, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendant Danny Elfman

Responding Party: Plaintiff Nomi Abadi

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT 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 July 19, 2023, Plaintiff Nomi Abadi sued Defendant Danny Elfman, asserting one cause of action for breach of contract.

ANALYSIS

“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 a 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….”  (CCP § 1281.2.)  The right to compel arbitration exists unless the court finds that the right has been waived by a party’s conduct, other grounds exist for revocation of the agreement, or where a pending court action arising out of the same transaction creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.   (CCP § 1281.2(a)-(c).)  “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.”  (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.)

A.           Existence of Arbitration Agreement

Defendant moves to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the settlement agreement executed in 2018. The agreement provides, “This Settlement Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and be governed by, the laws of the State of California. If any dispute arises relating to the enforcement or interpretation of this Settlement Agreement following its execution, the Parties agree that such a dispute shall be subject to arbitration in Los Angeles, California at ADR Services, Inc. and its arbitration rules will govern. If Hon. Carla Woehrle (Ret.) is still with ADR Services, Inc. if and when a dispute arises, she will preside if reasonably available. Otherwise the Parties will agree on an available arbitrator at ADR Services, Inc. Following arbitration, the prevailing party shall recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs relating to the dispute. The Parties shall, however, retain the right to seek to injunctive relief in the state or federal court located in Los Angeles County, California, which court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any such dispute and the Parties hereby consent to such jurisdiction and waive any right to object to the exercise of such jurisdiction.” (Decl. Elfman ¶ 5.)

Defendant has met his burden to establish an agreement to arbitrate. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to establish any defenses to enforcement.

B. Enforceability of Agreement

Plaintiff argues that the arbitration provision in the settlement agreement does not apply because Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief -- specific performance of the settlement provision requiring Defendant to make payments to a charitable gift fund -- and the provision exempts injunctive relief from mandatory arbitration. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claim is entirely predicated on the nonpayment of money, and the prayer for relief seeks payment of money. According to Defendant, Plaintiff claims to seek “injunctive relief” only to escape the arbitration agreement.

The Complaint is for breach of contract. It states that Defendant was required to “make payments in four different categories in various installments over the course of 5 years totaling $830,000.” Defendant allegedly breached the agreement by “[f]ailing to make payments to [the] charitable account category on two separate occasions.” The complaint states that “Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for recovery of the outstanding payments totaling $85,000.”

Generally, in determining whether a complaint states a legal or equitable claim, the Court looks to the “gist” of the action. “The legal or equitable ‘gist’ of the action is ordinarily determined by the mode of relief to be afforded, though the prayer for relief is not conclusive. Money damages are ordinarily the earmark of a legal claim.” Berg v. Pulte Home Corp. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5^th 277, 289 (internal citations omitted). The Complaint here plainly seeks “recovery” of money. Adding the phrase “injunctive relief” does not alter the nature of the claim.

Because the Complaint seeks monetary relief for breach of the settlement agreement, it is a “dispute…relating to the enforcement or interpretation of this Settlement Agreement.” It is governed by the arbitration clause.

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.