Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCP03792, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP03792    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 6, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Petitioner Jamra, Jamra, & Hanasab, L.L.P.

Responding Party: None

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

PETITIONER 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. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

On November 21, 2024, Petitioner Jamra, Jamra, & Hanasab, L.L.P. filed a petition to compel arbitration against Respondent Marco Galatro. Petitioner, who represented Respondent in a marriage dissolution, alleges Respondent failed to pay the agreed upon attorney’s fees.

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

Petitioner moves to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement in the engagement agreement executed by Respondent on January 28, 2022. (Exh.A.) The agreement provides that any disputes or controversies between Petitioner and Respondent “regarding the construction, application or performance of any services under this Agreement, and any claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or its breach, shall be submitted to binding arbitration….” (Id.) This action arises from the services rendered under the agreement.

Petitioner has met its burden to establish an agreement to arbitrate. Respondent has not opposed this motion to establish any defenses to enforcement.

Petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.