Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 21STCV38711, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV38711 Hearing Date: January 11, 2023 Dept: F51
Dept. F-51
Date: 1/11/23
Case #21STCV38711
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Motion filed on 6/13/22.
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Tri Pointe Homes IE-SD, Inc.
(erroneously sued as Pardee Homes); Craig Schwartz; Gary Chrakian; and Kathy
Magner (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Jean Doe
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order: (a) staying this action
as to Moving Defendants; and (b) compelling Plaintiffs’ claims against Moving
Defendants to be submitted to mediation and, if not resolved, to binding
arbitration.
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted, and the
action is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. Moving Defendants’ request
for judicial notice is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are members of the LGBTQ
community who are registered under the California “Safe at Home” program, as
set forth in Government Code section 6205 et seq., which, inter alia, provides
survivors of domestic violence with confidentiality in their names and
addresses. (FAC ¶¶ 4, 6.)
On or about 9/9/20, Plaintiff Jane
Doe allegedly entered into an agreement with moving defendant Tri Pointe Homes for
the purchase of a single family home. (Id., ¶ 5.) Following the
purchase, Plaintiffs notified Defendants twice, in writing, that they were
registrants under the Safe at Home program, and “specifically requested that
Plaintiffs’ name and address not be recorded, and instead that Defendants
comply with the requirements of the Program.” (Id., ¶ 6.) Thereafter,
Defendants allegedly “proceeded to file public records reflecting Plaintiff’s
personal name and associating her name with the address of the Property.” (Id.,
¶ 7.)
On 10/20/21, Plaintiffs filed their
original complaint, alleging against 11 named defendants the following causes
of action: (1) Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (2)
Negligence; and (3) Violation of Government Code section 6208.1. On 8/17/22,
Plaintiffs filed their FAC, alleging against the same 11 named defendants the
same causes of action, with an additional cause of action for (4) Violation of
Unruh Civil Rights Act.
On 6/13/22, Moving Defendants filed
the instant motion to compel arbitration and request for judicial notice. On
8/17/22, the Court continued the hearing to this date. No opposition has been
filed to date.
ANALYSIS
Under both the Federal Arbitration
Act and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a
contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166
Cal.App.4th 943, 947.)
Arbitration Agreement Between
the Parties
The party moving to compel
arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement
between the parties. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) This is usually done by
presenting a copy of the signed, written agreement to the court. “A petition to
compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
sections 1281.2 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.)
Here, Moving Defendants argue that
upon purchase of the subject property, Plaintiffs executed a Purchase Agreement
and Dispute Resolution Addendum, which incorporates by reference a Master
Declaration recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office on 6/8/17.[1] (Def.’s Mot., 7:7–12.) The
subject agreements “contain alternative dispute resolution provisions which require all post-closing
disputes with Tri Pointe Homes, including its officers, agents, and employees,
to be submitted to mediation, and if the dispute is not resolved through mediation,
to binding arbitration governed by the FAA.” (Id. at 7:27–8:1.)
Moving Defendants are Tri Pointe
Homes and three individuals who are its current/former employees. (Id. at
7:3–6.) According to Moving Defendants, the instant action “arises from the
post-closing recording of a grant deed conveying the Home to Plaintiffs,” and
is therefore subject to the arbitration provisions of the subject agreements. (Id.
at 7:16–17.)
Moving Defendants proffer the
subject agreements as exhibits to the instant motion, and additionally state
the provisions verbatim within the motion. The Purchase Agreement states, in
relevant part: “Buyer and Seller, by their execution of this Purchase
Agreement, each agree to be bound by all of such procedures set forth in the
Post-Closing Dispute Resolution Addendum and its attached Master Dispute
Resolution Declaration.” (Ex. A to Mot., ¶ 12.)
“The Dispute Resolution Addendum
establishes a dispute resolution process which applies to any and all
post-closing disputes and sets forth certain requirements that must be met before
legal proceedings may be commenced. Plaintiffs and Tri Pointe Homes agreed to
submit all post-closing disputes to mediation and, if not resolved, to binding
arbitration pursuant to the provisions set forth in the Master Declaration.”
(Def.’s Mot., 9:11–15; Ex. B to Mot., ¶¶
1, 5.)
The Master Declaration sets forth
specific procedures for the resolution of post-closing disputes. (Ex. C to
Mot., ¶ B, art. 4.)
The Master Declaration defines a “dispute” to include “any claim, issue, or
controversy that arises from or is related in any way to … the relationship
between any Owner and Builder, whether contractual, statutory, or in tort,
including but not limited to, claims, issues or controversies that arise from
or are related to the purchase, sale, … the agreement between Declarant and
Initial Guest Builder and Owner to purchase the Residence or any related
agreement…” (Id. at §
1.10.)
The Court finds that Moving
Defendants have sufficiently presented a written arbitration agreement between
the parties, which requires Plaintiffs to submit their claim against Moving
Defendants to mediation conducted by JAMS, and, if mediation is unsuccessful,
to mandatory binding arbitration. (Id. at §§ 4.3, 4.4.)
Plaintiffs’ Refusal to Arbitrate
The moving party must also
establish the other party’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy. (Code of Civ.
Proc. § 1281.2.) The filing of a lawsuit against the moving party for a
controversy clearly within the scope of the arbitration agreement affirmatively
establishes the other party’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy. (Hyundai
Amco America, Inc. v. S3H, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 572, 577.)
Here, Plaintiffs filed their action
alleging that Defendants improperly filed public records associating Plaintiffs’
names with the property address, in violation of their rights under the Safe at
Home program. In addition, Plaintiffs refused Moving Defendants’ 5/23/22
request to submit the dispute to arbitration. (Decl. of Gregory Golino, ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs did not
respond to Moving Defendants’ 6/10/22 request to stipulate to arbitration. (Id.
at ¶ 3.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court
finds that Moving Defendants have established Plaintiffs’ refusal to arbitrate
the controversy. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.) The Court notes that the instant
motion is unopposed. Accordingly, Moving Defendants’ motion is granted.
California Code of Civil Procedure
section 1281.4 states that the court shall stay the action or proceeding if the
court has ordered arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.) Here, as the Court
grants Moving Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, the case is therefore
stayed pending completion of arbitration.
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted, and the action is stayed pending the
outcome of arbitration. Moving Defendants’ request for judicial notice is
granted.