Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCP04150, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCP04150    Hearing Date: November 13, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Amended Complaint to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Plaintiff Thomas Waljeski

Resp. Party:    None

The Amended Petition is GRANTED. The Parties are ORDERED to arbitration. Jurisdiction is RETAINED for both the selection of an arbitrator and for enforcement of this Order. Costs are AWARDED in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent in the total amount of $655.74.

The Court sets a post-arbitration Status Conference for December ___, 2024.  The parties are to file a joint status conference report five court days prior to the hearing.

BACKGROUND:

On November 21, 2022, Petitioner Thomas Waljeski (“Petitioner”) filed his Petition to Compel Arbitration of Underinsured Motorist Claim and for Appointment of an Arbitrator (“Petition”) against Respondent 21st Century Insurance Company (“Respondent”).

On July 13, 2023, the Court denied without prejudice the Petition on the basis that Petitioner had not provided evidence of a written arbitration agreement between Petitioner and Respondent.

On September 12, 2023, Petitioner filed his Amended Complaint to Compel Arbitration of Underinsured Motorist Claim and for Appointment of an Arbitrator (“Amended Petition”). In support of his Amended Petition, Petitioner concurrently filed Declaration of Marshall C. Sanders Re Failure to File Amended Petition to Compel Arbitration.

On October 23, 2023, Petitioner filed: (1) Judicial Council Form MC-010, Memorandum of Costs (Summary); (2) Declaration of Marshall C. Sanders Re Costs; (3) Proposed Order; and (4) Proof of Service.

No opposition or other response has been filed to the Amended Petition.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.)

“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 [unless it makes certain determinations].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

“Under both federal and state law, arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable, unless they are revocable for reasons under state law that would render any contract revocable. . . . Reasons that would render any contract revocable under state law include fraud, duress, and unconscionability.” (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239, citations omitted.)

“The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence[]’ the existence of an arbitration agreement.¿The party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement's enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.¿In determining whether there is a duty to arbitrate, the trial court must, at least to some extent, examine and construe the agreement.” (Tiri, supra, at p. 239.)

II.       Discussion

Petitioner moves the Court to: (1) order Petitioner and Respondent to arbitrate Petitioner’s claim for underinsured motorist benefits before a mutually-acceptable arbitrator, if the Parties can agree upon an arbitrator; (2) retain jurisdiction for the selection of an arbitrator in case the Parties are unable to mutually agree to the selection of an arbitrator; (3) award Petitioner his costs in this matter; and (4) retain jurisdiction to enforce the Court’s order. (Amended Petition, p. 3:18–25.)

Petitioner provides the Court with an insurance policy between the Parties. (Amended Petition, Exh. A.) The insurance policy contains an arbitration provision. (Id. at p. 9 [actual page 17 of 45].)

        Respondent has not opposed the Amended Petition.

Petitioner has met his burden to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement.  The Court sees no reason to deny the Amended Petition.

        As the prevailing party on the Amended Petition, Petitioner is entitled to his costs. The costs requested are reasonable.  The Court imposes costs of $655.74.

III.     Conclusion

The Amended Petition is GRANTED. The Parties are ORDERED to arbitration. Jurisdiction is RETAINED for both the selection of an arbitrator and for enforcement of this Order. Costs are AWARDED in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent in the total amount of $655.74

The Court sets a post-arbitration Status Conference for December ___, 2024.  The parties are to file a joint status conference report five court days prior to the hearing.