Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00044609-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 05, 2023

10/06/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00044609-CU-PO-CTL DRUMMOND VS BERNARDO HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL BINDING ARBITRATION is GRANTED.

Defendants BERNARDO HEIGHTS HEALTHCARE, INC. dba CARMEL MOUNTAIN REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER, MATTHEW RUTTER and CYNTHIA FRANCIA-COOK, R.N.

('Defendants') seek to compel Plaintiff GIGI DRUMMOND ('Plaintiff') to submit to arbitration. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

CCP 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....

(CCP §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. (Id.) Defendants have met their burden to show the existence of the arbitration agreement and that Plaintiff's allegations fall within the scope of the arbitration provision. Plaintiff fails to raise any defenses as to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, the arbitration agreement is unenforceable. The motion is granted. The case is hereby stayed pursuant to CCP section 1281.4. A status conference is hereby set for March 29, 2024, at 10:00 am.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2966329  67