Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs Lorilee House and Harold House (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this professional malpractice action against defendants Wilshire Law Firm, PLC and Bobby Babak Saadian (collectively, “Defendants”) for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) fraud. 

On December 29, 2023, the court granted Defendant’s motion to compel this matter to arbitration and to stay the action. 

On June 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking an order relieving Plaintiffs from payment of arbitration fees and costs and directing Defendants to pay the full arbitration fees, or in the alternative lifting the stay. 

Any opposition was due on or before August 20, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date. 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

California has a long-standing policy of ensuring access to the justice system to address grievances, without regard to financial means. (Weiler v. Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 970, 978 [232 Cal.Rptr.3d 155, 161, 22 Cal.App.5th 970, 978].) This policy supports the courts’ power to consider the financial situation of a party to determine if bearing arbitration costs would result in that party effectively being deprived of any forum to resolve their claims. (Ibid.) “If sufficient evidence is presented on these issues, and the court concludes the party's financial status is not a result of the party's intentional attempt to avoid arbitration, the court may issue an order specifying: (1) the arbitration shall continue so long as the other party to the arbitration agrees to pay, or the arbitrator orders it to pay, all fees and costs of the arbitration; and (2) if neither of those occur, the arbitration shall be deemed ‘had’ and the case may proceed in the superior court.” (Weiler v. Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 981.) 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs seek an order from this Court that Defendants either agree to pay the arbitration costs in its entirety or waive their right to arbitration because Plaintiffs cannot afford to bear their portion of the arbitration expenses. Plaintiffs cite Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 87 (Roldan) in support of this contention. In Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 87, 89–90, as modified (Sept. 18, 2013), the Court of Appeal evaluated the trial court’s order denying a motion by plaintiffs seeking that the court order defendant either pay the arbitration costs or waive their right to arbitrate because plaintiffs were allegedly indigent and unable to pay the costs. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court decision and ordered the trial court to “(1) estimate the reasonable costs of arbitration previously ordered; (2) determine whether any of these plaintiffs are financially able to pay their anticipated share of the costs; and (3) if any of them are unable to do so, issue an order specifying that [defendant] has the option of either paying that plaintiff's share of the costs of arbitration, or waiving its right to arbitrate that plaintiff's case and allowing the case to proceed in court.” (Ibid.) In Aronow v. Superior Court (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 865, 885, the Court of Appeal held that “the trial court has discretion to decide [plaintiff]'s ability to pay arbitration fees and can do so upon declarations with supporting exhibits or after conducting an evidentiary hearing.” (Emphasis added.)¿ 

The California Supreme Court in Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal. 5th 594, 622 cited Roldan in approval of the decision showing “under California law when a litigant in a judicial proceeding has qualified for in forma pauperis status, a court may not consign the indigent litigant to a costly private alternative procedure that the litigant cannot afford and that effectively negates the purpose and benefit of in forma pauperis status.” However, the determining factor here is whether there has been a showing by Plaintiffs of their indigency. As an example of sufficient evidence for determination, the Court of Appeal affirmed that a declaration that a plaintiff was unable to pay the arbitration fees and was ‘penniless’ was supported by a letter from the Social Security Administration, recent statements demonstrating the balance of the trust accounts, and a declaration that the plaintiff had no other assets or property. (Hang v. RG Legacy I, LLC (2023) 88 Cal. App. 5th 1243, 1255.) 

In contrast, Plaintiffs here have not provided any evidence for this Court to conclude Plaintiffs’ financial status to provide relief. Plaintiffs’ identical declarations attest, without any specificity, that they have no savings, are both unemployed, that their income is below the established poverty levels at both the state and federal levels, and that they have a combined joint Social Security income of $2,960.43 a month. (Mot. Lorilee House Decl. ¶ 7; Harold House Decl. ¶ 7.) These general assertions, without any supporting evidence, falls short of demonstrating Plaintiffs’ inability to pay their share of arbitration costs such that the Court cannot presently grant the requested relief. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to lift stay is granted for the limited purpose of the Court conducting an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs’ ability to pay the arbitrator fees. The Court sets an OSC re: Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Ability to Pay Arbitrator Fees for _________________ in Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Dept. 78. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: August 30, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.