Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02620, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02620    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 8, 2023, plaintiff South Goodyear Investment Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against defendant Karen Brandt dba Lulu Brandt (“Defendant”) in connection with the premises located at 1 West California Boulevard, Suite #412 in Pasadena, California. On December 1, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order advancing the hearing date on a motion to compel arbitration that Defendant served (but did not file) or, in the alternative, deny the motion. The motion was not on file with the Court, but a hearing was reserved for May 20, 2024.

On December 20, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application and advanced the hearing from May 20, 2024 to January 5, 2024, with any opposition brief to be filed before January 3, 2024. The Court ordered the motion filed forthwith.

Defendant did not file the motion to compel arbitration until January 4, 2024. On the same day, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief to the motion to compel arbitration. Because the motion was filed late, on January 5, 2024, the hearing was continued to January 19, 2024.   

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

In deciding a motion to compel arbitration, trial courts must decide first whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue whether the claims are covered within the scope of the agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) The party seeking arbitration has the “burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, while a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842.) The trial court “sits as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, and any oral testimony the court may receive at its discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Id.) General principles of contract law govern whether parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236; see also Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.)¿

III.        DISCUSSION

The operative lease includes an arbitration agreement as an addendum, but notably explicitly excludes several disputes from the scope of arbitration, including, “[c]laims relating to (a) [Plaintiff]’s exercise of any unlawful detainer rights pursuant to applicable law or (b) rights or remedies used by [Plaintiff] to gain possession of the Premises or terminate [Defendant]’s right of possession to the Premises, all of which disputes shall be resolved by suit filed in the applicable court of jurisdiction, the decision of which court shall be subject to appeal pursuant to applicable law.” (Lease, p. 17  

Defendant argues that this unlawful detainer action is subject to arbitration because the complaint seeks damages. Defendant argues that possession cannot be at issue because she is not in possession of the property, but it is Brandt & Winston Inc. that is in possession, and, therefore, the claim for damages must be arbitrated.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that this action is specifically excluded from the scope of the arbitration agreement because Plaintiff is exercising its unlawful detainer rights by seeking possession and a monetary judgment for failure to pay rent.

By arguing that possession is not at issue, Defendant is challenging the merits of the unlawful detainer action. However, not only does Defendant fail to submit any evidence to support this assertion, but the merits of the unlawful detainer are irrelevant to this motion, which only examines whether this complaint presents a dispute which is arbitrable. The dispute, regardless of whether it has merit, is an unlawful detainer action. (See Briggs v. Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corp. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 900, 906 [an unlawful detainer will not lie against a defendant who is not in possession of the premises at commencement of the lawsuit].) Moreover, Plaintiff’s request for damages does not bring this unlawful detainer action within the scope of the arbitration agreement because the unlawful detainer statute allows for the assessment of damages, including the amount of rent due “if the alleged unlawful detainer be after default in the payment of rent.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1174, subd. (b).) Also, any attorneys’ fees incurred with this unlawful detainer action would relate to Plaintiff’s exercise of its unlawful detainer rights and therefore, is not subject to arbitration.

Accordingly, the Court finds that this unlawful detainer action falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.  

IV.         CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.

Dated this 19th day of January, 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.