Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2023-00024957-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 22, 2024

02/23/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00024957-CU-WT-CTL BARKER VS ICE MANAGEMENT LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Notice of Motion and Supporting Declarations, 09/13/2023

Defendant Ice Management, LLC dba The Rinks Poway Ice's unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 provides: '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 such 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 determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement. (c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact[.]' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) The moving party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement and that the dispute is covered by the agreement. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) The burden then shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a ground for denial, e.g., unconscionability or waiver.

(Ibid.) Doubts about the applicability of an arbitration agreement to a particular dispute should be resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration. (Serv. Emps. Int'l Union v. City of L.A. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 136, 143.) Here, Defendant has met their burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. (See ROA 11, Shimizu Decl., Ex. 1 [Agreement].) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion or presented any grounds for denial. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

This matter is ordered stayed pending the arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092351  2