Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23GDCV02117, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV02117    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT V 

MOVING PARTIES:             (1) Defendant S&S Entities, LLC 

(2) Defendant Vets Securing America, Inc.  

(3) S&S Management Services, LLC 

(4) Worldwide Sourcing Group, Inc.  

(5) American Guard Services, Inc.  

RESPONDING PARTY:       (1)-(5) Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. 

Motions to Compel Arbitration  

The court considered the moving papers and non-opposition papers. No reply papers were filed in connection with the motions.  

BACKGROUND 

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the following defendants: (1) American Guard Services, Inc.; (2) Worldwide Sourcing Group, Inc.; (3) S&S Management Services, LLC aka S&S Management Services LLC dba Professional Building Maintenance also dba JC Construction Services; (4) S & S Entities, LLC aka S & S Entities LLC; (5) 1125 190th LLC; (6) Vets Securing America, Inc.; (7) Financing Debt, LLC aka Financing Debt, LLC; (8) United Stevedoring of America, Inc. dba Hallmark Stevedoring Company; (9) Karim Karawia Aka Karim O Karawia aka Karim Ousama Karawia; (10) Wael Mudawar aka Wael I Mudawar aka Wael Ibraheim Mudawar; (11) Vescom Corporation; and (12) Does 1 through 10, Inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”).  

The Complaint asserts two causes of action for (1) breach of contract and (2) quantum meruit. Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff’s assignor, Bradley Gmelich & Wellerstein (the “Assignor”), is a law firm organized and existing under California laws with a principal place of business in Glendale, CA 91203. (Compl., ¶ 6.) “On or about January 17, 2019, Defendants retained Plaintiff’s Assignor to provide legal services to Defendants. …. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s Assignor rendered legal services to and on behalf of Defendants.” (Comp., ¶ 12.) “Between January 17, 2019 and March 31, 2023, Plaintiff’s Assignor billed Defendants for legal services rendered and for cost incurred in representing Defendants for a total amount of $115,604.43.” (Compl., ¶ 13.) However, Defendants have failed and refused to pay that amount. (Compl., ¶ 14.) “Defendants’ refusal and failure to pay Plaintiff’s Assignor for said services is a breach of the contract between Defendants and Plaintiff’s Assignor.” (Comp., ¶ 15.) 

On December 26, 2023, Defendants S&S Entities, LLC, Vets Securing America, Inc., S&S Management Services, LLC, Worldwide Sourcing Group, Inc., American Guard Services, Inc. (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration.  

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition, stating it does not oppose the motions to compel arbitration.  

Defendants did not file any reply.  A Case Management Conference is set for April 24, 2024.  

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 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 . . . .”   

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)  “If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, 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 

The Moving Defendants (represented by the same counsel) seek orders compelling Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the retainer agreement attached to the Complaint. (Motions, p. 3:5-9 [“Attached to Complaints recently filed by Plaintiff are arbitration agreements signed by Plaintiff’s assignor. This Motion is expressly made based upon the provisions of C.C.P. Section 1281.2 and 1281.4, and such other applicable provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure, based upon such written binding arbitration agreements contained in Retainer Agreements for legal work between the parties”].)  

The retainer agreement was entered between Bradley & Gmelich LLP (Plaintiff’s alleged assignor), Moving Defendants, and other defendants. (Compl., Exhibit 1 – a copy of the retainer agreement, p. 1.)  The arbitration provision in the agreement states the following in relevant part: “Any controversy between the parties regarding the construction, application or performance of any services under this Agreement, and any claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or its breach, shall be submitted to binding arbitration upon the written request of one party after the service of that request on the other party. The parties shall use and be guided by Judicate West in Los Angeles, who shall hear and determine the dispute, or another agency mutually agreed upon.” (Compl., Exhibit 1, p. 5, Section 11.A.)  

Plaintiff states that it does not oppose Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, the court accordingly grants the motions as to the moving defendants, and additionally orders this matter stayed as to those defendants pending arbitration. 

The court notes that certain additional defendants in the case have not been served, and others have been served but have neither filed a response to the Complaint.  This order will not stay the matter as to those additional defendants.  

Based on the foregoing, the motions to compel arbitration are granted. Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. and Defendants S&S Entities, LLC, Vets Securing America, Inc., S&S Management Services, LLC, Worldwide Sourcing Group, Inc., and American Guard Services, Inc. are to arbitrate their dispute. The court orders this action stayed as to those parties pending arbitration.  

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.