Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV41511, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41511    Hearing Date: August 2, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant Lakewood Residential Care, LLC dba Lakewood Park Manor (“Petitioner”) moves to compel plaintiffs Alejandro De Leon, Jr., individually and as successor in interest to Velia De Leon, Velia De Leon (“Decedent”), Adrian De Leon, Ana De La Cerda, Ricardo De La Cerda (collectively, “Respondents”) to arbitrate Respondents’ claims arising from the death of Decedent while under the supervision and care of Petitioner’s residential care facility for the elderly, Lakewood Park (“Lakewood”). Respondents oppose the motion.

EVIDENCE

            With respect to Respondents’ objections to Petitioner’s evidence in support of the petition, the Court rules as follows:

Declaration of Erol D. Ari

1. Sustained as to paragraph 2 of the declaration for lack of foundation.

    

   Exhibit A to Declaration of Erol D. Ari

    

1. Sustained

2. Overruled

    

   Declaration of Cynthia Flores

    

3. Overruled

    

   ANALYSIS

    

               “[T]he advantages of arbitration include a presumptively less costly, more expeditious manner of resolving disputes.  It follows a party to a valid arbitration agreement has a contractual right to have its dispute with another party to the contract resolved quickly and inexpensively.”  (Henry v. Alcove Investment, Inc. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 94, 99–100 [cleaned up].)  Thus, “on petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; see also

   EFund Capital Partners v. Pless (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1311, 1320 [the language in section 1281.2 compelling arbitration is mandatory].) 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a)-(c).)   

    

               “On a petition to compel arbitration, the trial court must first determine whether an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.  Because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.  The party seeking arbitration can meet its initial burden by attaching to the petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the respondent's signature.”  (Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5^th 541, 543-544 [cleaned up].)  The party seeking to compel arbitration must also “plead and prove a prior demand for arbitration and a refusal to arbitrate under the agreement.”  (Mansouri v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 633, 640-641.) 

    

               And while the moving party on a motion to compel arbitration “bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, [a] party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.  The trial court sits as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, and any oral testimony the court may receive at its discretion, to reach a final determination.”  (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842 [cleaned up]; see also Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 [“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”].) 

    

   Here, Petitioners allege Respondents have improperly denied Petitioner’s demand for arbitration pursuant to Petitioner’s arbitration agreement with Decedent.  Petitioner advances the declaration of counsel for Petitioner, Erol D. Ari (“Ari”).  Ari states Respondents have refused his request to stipulate to arbitration.  (Declaration of Erol D. Ari, ¶¶ 5-6.) 

    

               Petitioners also advance the declaration of Cynthia Flores (“Flores”), who is the assistant administrator for Lakewood, and was acting as such on the date of Decedent’s admission.  Flores states that Decedent was admitted to Lakewood on September 24, 2019, and, as part of the admissions process, was provided with the Admission Agreement containing the subject arbitration agreement on that date.  (Declaration of Cynthia Flores, ¶¶ 2-3.)  Flores states that she went over the provisions of the Admission Agreement with Decedent, explained the arbitration clause contained in the Admission Agreement to Decedent, and asked if Decedent had any questions.  (Declaration of Cynthia Flores, ¶ 4.)  Flores avers that Decedent stated that she did not have any questions regarding the arbitration clause.  (Ibid.)  Finally, Flores avers that Decedent acknowledged her understanding of the arbitration clause and initialed it before Flores, and, after reviewing the entire Admission Agreement with her, Decedent then signed the Admission Agreement before Flores.  (Declaration of Cynthia Flores, ¶ 5.) 

    

               In opposition, Respondents argue Petitioners have failed to establish the validity of the arbitration agreement.  Specifically, Respondents cast doubt upon whether Decedent’s initials on the agreement were, in fact, written by her hand, and asserts that Decedent was nevertheless mentally incapacitated on the date she is purported to have signed the arbitration agreement.

    

   Though not addressed by the parties, the Court finds that Health and Safety Code section 1569.269 presents a critical issue.  Health and Safety Code section 1569.269, subdivision (c), provides, “No provision of a contract of admission, including all documents that a resident or his or her representative is required to sign as part of the contract for, or as a condition of, admission to a residential care facility for the elderly, shall require that a resident waive benefits or rights to which he or she is entitled under this chapter or provided by federal or other state law or regulation.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 1569.269, subd. (c).)

    

   Here, there is no dispute that the arbitration clause was included in Petitioner’s Admission Agreement with Decedent.  Because the Court may not consider the copy of the purported Admission Agreement between Petitioner and Decedent based on its ruling on Respondents’ evidentiary objections, and because Petitioner has advanced no other competent evidence to establish that the Admission Agreement and arbitration clause comply with Section 1569.269, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. 

    

   Accordingly, the Court denies the petition.  Petitioner shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling, and file a proof of service of such.