Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 24STCP02449, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCP02449, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP02449 Hearing Date: September 23, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 9-23-24

Case: 24STCP02249

Trial Date: N/A

ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner , Milestones Behavioral Treatment Program, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent, Joseph Jose

RELIEF REQUESTED

Petition to Compel Arbitration and Attorney Fees

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Petitioner Milestones Behavioral Treatment Program, Inc., filed a petition to compel arbitration on August 6, 2024.

RULING: Granted in Part/Denied in Part.

Petitioner Milestones Behavioral Treatment Program, Inc. filed a petition to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the Business Purchase Agreement And Joint Escrow Instructions as to Respondent Joseph Jose. Petitioner also seeks recovery of attorney fees. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

“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.) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) “In the absence of any existing contract action, a section 1281.2 petition may be filed independently, in which case it commences an independent lawsuit to enforce the agreement to arbitrate.” (Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 515, 532.)

The law creates a general presumption in favor of arbitration. In a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement and that the dispute is covered by the agreement. “‘Under “both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.”’” (Long v. Provide Commerce, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 855, 861.) “Private arbitration is a matter of agreement between the parties and is governed by contract law. (Platt Pacific, Inc. v. Andelson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 307, 313.) In a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of the arbitration agreement and that the dispute is covered by the agreement. The burden then shifts to the resisting party to prove by a preponderance of evidence a ground for denial (e.g., fraud, unconscionability, etc.). (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin'l Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164–165; Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Ctr., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.) Any challenges to the formation of the arbitration agreement should be considered before any order sending the parties to arbitration. The trier of fact weighs all evidence, including affidavits, declarations, documents, and, if applicable, oral testimony to determine whether the action goes to arbitration. (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Ctr., Inc., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 758.)

Barring a conflict supporting a preemption of a specific provision under FAA, the court adheres to the California standard for compelling arbitration in that FAA and California adhere to the same standards for review of arbitration agreements. The court finds no conflict with the FAA under the terms of the agreement. (Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (1989) 489 U.S. 468, 477–479; Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 346; see Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1119; Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906.)

The petition incorporates a copy of the relied upon agreement, which contains an arbitration provision. [Declarations of Joyce Williams and Philip Green.] Petitioner represents the dispute arose upon Respondent’s refusal to comply with the contract provisions, specifically payment of $285,000 after assumption of business operations. The petition and notice of hearing were both served on Respondent.

The court finds Petitioner complies with all requirements for service and presentation of the dispute to arbitration. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to establish a lack of enforceability of the arbitration agreement. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin'l Securities Corp., supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 413-414; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 164–165; Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Ctr., Inc., supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 758.) Respondent submits no opposition.

The petition to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

On the request for attorney fees, the court neither finds any legal, statutory or contractual support for the recovery of the requested fee as the prevailing party in compelling the arbitration agreement. (Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 565, 572 (footnote 3); Acosta v. Kerrigan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1132; Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 805, 833.) The motion for attorney fees is therefore DENIED.

As for the arbitration process, the agreement itself only requires the appointment of a qualified arbitrator with no other specific criteria. Given the absence of selection criteria, the court cites to the applicable code section:

If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.6.)

The motion to compel is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281, et seq. The court therefore finds the language of section 1281.6 applicable.

The participating parties are therefore ordered to select an arbitration organization and individual arbitrator within the organization, or an individual arbitrator with no affiliation. If the parties cannot agree on an organization, and/or arbitrator, the court orders the parties to submit a list of one to two organizations and/or arbitrators from each party, where the court will select the organization or individual. In other words, the parties may submit up to a total of two nominations per side. The parties have 30 days from the date of this order to begin the selection process, with any proposed list due the day after the lapse of the 30-day period. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.6.)

The court will set an OSC re: Status of Arbitration.

Petitioner to give notice.