Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV01417, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01417    Hearing Date: October 30, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

XIAO YONG CHEN,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

WAYNE UEI WANG, et al.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)
)

     CASE NO.:  24NNCV01417

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

October 30, 2024

 

)

 

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 6, 2024, this action was filed by Xiao Yong Chen (“Plaintiff”) against Wayne Uei Wang and Jessie Wang (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff asserts causes of action for fraud, breach of contract, and conversion arising from a real estate transaction. On June 14, 2024, Defendants filed this motion to compel arbitration and stay action. The motion is unopposed.

 

 

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 party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.” (Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 581, 586 .)

Here, Defendants attach a copy of the Residential Purchase Agreement (“RPA”) which underlies their purchase of Plaintiff’s property and gives rise to this action. (Wang Decl., Ex. 1.) The RPA contains an arbitration provision which provides the following:

A. The Parties agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration. . . .  The arbitration shall be conducted through any arbitration provider or service mutually agreed to by the Parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or justice, or an attorney with at least 5 years of residential real estate Law experience, unless the Parties mutually agree to a different arbitrator. Enforcement of, and any motion to compel arbitration pursuant to, this agreement to arbitrate shall be governed by the procedural rules of the Federal Arbitration Act, and not the California Arbitration Act, notwithstanding any language seemingly to the contrary in this Agreement. The Parties shall have the right to discovery in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1283.05. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment upon the award of the arbitrator(s) may be entered into any court having jurisdiction.

 

Defendants first note that in April 2024, Defendants initiated mediation with the California Association of Realtors Mediation Center but Plaintiff failed to participate, instead filing this action in state court. (Sedor Decl., ¶ 2.) Second, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision within the RPA because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the RPA, made misrepresentations in connection with their real estate transaction, and converted funds related to the RPA. The Court agrees. The RPA’s arbitration provision encompasses “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between [the parties] out of [the RPA] or any resulting transaction.” (Wang Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 31.) Therefore, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to challenge the authenticity of the agreement. (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.) However, since Plaintiff did not oppose this motion, Plaintiff necessarily fails to meet that burden. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is granted.

IV.        CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

Dated this 30th day of October, 2024

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

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.