Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00847, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00847    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: SEC

CALIBER CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION, INC. v. VILLALOBOS

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00847

HEARING:  09/15/22

JUDGE:  JOHN A. TORRIBIO

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff CALIBER CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION, INC.’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. CCP § 1281.2. This action is STAYED until conclusion of the arbitration. The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of September 13, 2022.   

Except for specifically enumerated exceptions, the court must order the petitioner and respondent to arbitrate a controversy if the court finds that a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists. (See CCP §1281.2.) “In California, [g]eneral principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate.” (Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420.) “A petition to compel arbitration or stay proceedings pursuant to CCP §§1281.1 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1330.)

The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination. (Engalia v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant. On or about February 6, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an Arbitration Agreement. (Anderson Decl., ¶4, Ex. A.) The Arbitration Agreement at issue states, in pertinent part: “Any dispute arising out of or relating to the negotiation, award, construction, performance or non-performance, of any aspect of this agreement, shall be settled by binding arbitration….” (Id.)

As of September 13, 2022, no Opposition has been filed. The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and absent any Opposition, the motion to compel arbitration is granted.

The request for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff does not articulate the legal basis in which sanctions are being sought. For example, if sanctions are being sought under CCP §128.5—such request must be made in a separately noticed motion.