Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV15521, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15521    Hearing Date: October 17, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 17, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Defendant Palmetto Solar, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Curtis Randolph

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

THE ACTION IS STAYED.

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 June 18, 2024, Plaintiff sued Defendants Palmetto Solar, LLC, Lightreach, Energy Service Partners Inc., Serenity Builders & Developers Inc., and the State of California, asserting causes of action for negligence, fraud, breach of contract and UCL violations. Plaintiff, who co-owns real property with non-party Gordon Randolph, alleges Defendants wrongfully coerced Gordon Randolph into signing a 25-year lease for solar panels.

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 Solar Lease Agreement executed by Gordon Randolph on March 8, 2024. (Exh. A.) The agreement provides, “ARBITRATION REPLACES THE RIGHT TO GO TO COURT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL...You and we agree that any dispute, claim or disagreement between you and us (a ‘Dispute’) shall be resolved exclusively by arbitration except as specifically provided below. Disputes covered by this agreement include but are not limited to: claims arising out of or relating to this Agreement; claims arising out of or relating to our relationship; claims that arose before this or any prior Agreement (including, but not limited to, claims relating to advertising); consumer protection claims; and claims under any federal or state statute.” (Id., Exh. 2.)

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

B. Non-Signatory

Plaintiff Curtis Randolph asserts that he cannot be compelled to arbitration because he is a non-signatory to the agreement. In reply, Defendant asserts Plaintiff may be compelled to arbitrate under the doctrines of equitable estoppel and third-party beneficiary.

“When a plaintiff brings a claim which relies on contract terms against a defendant, the plaintiff may be equitably estopped from repudiating the arbitration clause contained in that agreement.” (JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Court (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1239.) “When that plaintiff is suing on a contract— on the basis that, even though the plaintiff was not a party to the contract, the plaintiff is nonetheless entitled to recover for its breach, the plaintiff should be equitably estopped from repudiating the contract's arbitration clause.” (Id. at 1239–1240.)

Plaintiff’s allegations arise from the formation, execution, and claimed breach of the Solar Lease Agreement. Plaintiff is estopped from repudiating the arbitration clause. Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The action is STAYED.