Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV26354, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26354    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 34

Petitioner Philip Debevoise’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

 

Background

 

            On October 9, 2024, Petitioner Philip Debevoise (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration against Respondent State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company (“Respondent”) arising from an automobile collision that occurred on February 10, 2020.

 

            On October 11, 2024, Petitioner filed this Motion to Compel Arbitration. As of November 12, 2024, no opposition or other response has been filed.

 

Legal Standard

“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 determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a) and (b).)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 761.) The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a defense to enforcement (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.) (Ibid.) “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.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)

“If a court of competent jurisdiction. . . has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4).

Discussion

            Petitioner moves the court to compel arbitration of Petitioner’s claims, to select am arbitrator, and to order Respondent and Respondent’s counsel to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,295.00 for attorney’s fees and costs. (Motion, at pp. 4-5.)  Petitioner contends that an arbitration agreement between the parties exists as part of Petitioner’s bodily injury liability insurance policy with Respondent. (Ibid.)

            As a preliminary matter, a moving party must provide prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate. “With respect to the moving party's burden to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court. (See Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 597.) Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges. [Citation]” (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160.)

 

            The court finds that Petitioner has not met its initial burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties as Petitioner did not at least provide the court with a copy of the insurance policy. Since the court must ascertain whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists prior to assessing the merits of Petitioner’s motion, Petitioner’s failure to provide a copy of the arbitration agreement is fatal.

 

Conclusion

 

Petitioner Philip Debevoise’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.