Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01820, Date: 2024-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01820    Hearing Date: September 16, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Inland Valley Partners, LLC’s Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration and To Stay the Superior Court Matter Pending the Hearing on the Petition

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Inland Valley Partners, LLC’s Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action. On June 6, 2024, Plaintiffs Mellisa Perez and Joseph Robert Perdomo, by and through guardian ad litem Maria Mirella Murguia, filed a complaint against Defendants Inland Valley Partners, LLC, doing business as Inland Valley Care and Rehabilitation Center (IVCRC); Chino Valley Medical Center (CVMC); Timothy Wu, M.D.; Hsin Chen Liu, D.O.; Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (PVHMC); Hammad Shaikh, M.D.; Krishi Chanduri, M.D.; Nathaniel Soriano, M.D.; and Does 1-100, alleging a cause of action for general negligence.

On July 2, 2024, Perez and Perdomo dismissed CVMC, Dr. Wu, Dr. Liu, PVHMC, Dr. Shaikh, Dr. Chanduri, and Dr. Soriano from the present action.

On August 9, 2024, IVCRC filed the present petition. A hearing on the present petition is set for September 16, 2024, along with a case management conference on October 28, 2024.

ANALYSIS

IVCRC petitions the court to compel arbitration of Perez and Perdomo’s wrongful death action. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS IVCRC’s petition.

Legal Standard

“A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.) The court must grant a petition to compel arbitration unless it finds no written agreement to arbitrate exists, the right to compel arbitration has been waived, grounds exist for revocation of the agreement, or litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) A petition to compel arbitration functions as a motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.2.)

In a motion or petition to compel arbitration, “the moving party bears the burden of producing ‘prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.’” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165 (Gamboa).) Once the court finds an arbitration agreement exists, the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of establishing a defense to enforcement by preponderance of the evidence. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) In interpreting an arbitration agreement, courts apply the same principles used to interpret contractual provisions with the fundamental goal of giving effect to the parties’ mutual intentions and applying contractual language if clear and explicit. (Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 177.) Because public policy strongly favors arbitration, “any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp. v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.)

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to contracts that involve interstate commerce (9 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2), but since arbitration is a matter of contract, the FAA also applies if stated in the agreement. (See Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355.) Pursuant to the FAA, the court’s role “is limited to determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.” (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 834, 840, quoting U.S. ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC (9th Cir. 2017) 871 F.3d 791, 796.)

Discussion

In this case, the Complaint alleges IVCRC was negligent in providing care and treatment for Oscar Daniel Perdomo, Perez’s husband and Joseph Perdomo’s father. (Complaint, p. 4.) IVCRC argues Perez and Joseph Perdomo’s wrongful death action is subject to an arbitration agreement that was executed by Oscar Perdomo prior to Perdomo’s admission to IVCRC. (Petition, Ex. A.) Specifically, they point to the following provisions:

“Article 1. It is understood that any dispute as to medical malpractice, that is as to whether any medical services rendered under this contract were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered, will be determined by submission to arbitration as provided by California law, and not by a lawsuit or resort to court process except as California law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings. Both parties to this contract, by entering into it, are giving up their constitutional right to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury, and instead are accepting the use of arbitration.

Article 2. It is further understood that any dispute between Resident and Inland Valley Care and Rehabilitation, its owners, operators, officers, directors, administrators, staff, employees, agents, and any management and/or service company that provides services to the Facility that relates to the provision of care, treatment and services the Facility provides to the Resident, …, including any action for injury or death arising from negligence, intentional tort and/or statutory causes of action (including all California Welfare and Institutions Code sections and Health and Safety Code section 1430), will be determined by submission to binding arbitration . . . .” (Petition, Ex. A, art. 1, 2.)

The arbitration agreement states it “is binding on all parties, including the Resident’s representatives, executors, family members, and heirs who bring any claims individually or in a representative capacity.” (Petition, Ex. A, art. 4.) It also states it is governed by the FAA. (Petition, Ex. A, art. 7.) Based on these provisions, the court finds this arbitration agreement applies to Perez and Joseph Perdomo’s wrongful death action. Furthermore, Perez and Joseph Perdomo have failed to file any timely opposition to this petition.

Accordingly, because IVCRC has established Perez and Joseph Perdomo’s wrongful death action is subject to an arbitration agreement and Perez and Joseph Perdomo have failed to establish any defense to the enforcement of that agreement, IVCRC’s petition is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IVCRC’s petition to compel arbitration of Perez and Jospeh Perdomo’s wrongful death action is GRANTED.

The court intends to set an OSC re: Status of Arbitration Completion in 180 days.