Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV00242, Date: 2022-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00242    Hearing Date: November 1, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS IS DENIED WITHOIUT PREJUDICE
 

Background 

On August 95, 2022 Plaintiff George Fuller by and through Marjorie Grant—Fuller filed a Complaint against Defendants

 

Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Centre (“BHRC”); Kaiser Foundation Hospitals; Southern California Permanente Medical Group; Kaiser Foundation Health Plaint; and Does 1 to 200 for:

1) Elder Abuse;

2) Negligence;

3) Violation of Residents Rights.

 

On September 15, 2022, BHRC filed a petition to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.

 

On October 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. BHRC filed a reply on October 24, 2022. 

Legal Standard 

Parties may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute upon the court finding that: (1) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and (2) said agreement covers the controversy or controversies in the parties’ dispute.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004)¿118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.) 

A party petitioning to compel arbitration has the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate and the party opposing the petition has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to its defense. (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356-57.) 

“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 

Defendant Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Centre (“BHRC”) moves to compel arbitration and stay the action pursuant to an arbitration agreement signed by Plaintiff’s agent by way of power of attorney.

 

The Power of Attorney is stated as being effective as of December 01, 2020 and the arbitration agreement is alleged to have been executed on May 14, 2021. (Christopoulos Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3, Ex. A, B.)

 

To establish a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes, “[t]he petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by [a] preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)

 

California Evidence Code sections 1400 and 1561 requires writings to be authenticated by a person with personal knowledge. (Evid. Code, §§ 1401, subd. (a), 1561, subd. (a).) Therefore, for the alleged arbitration agreement and the power of attorney document to be admissible they need to be authenticated by a witness with personal knowledge and/or a custodian of records.

 

Defense counsel’s assertion that Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the arbitration agreement and is maintained in the ordinary course of business is insufficient to make the agreement admissible. The same applies to the power of attorney document attached as Exhibit B. Defense counsel does not have personal knowledge of the preparation or execution of these documents.

 

Without proper authentication, the Court cannot determine if the agreement complies with the applicable statutory requirements Plaintiff alleges the agreement failed to meet. Moreover, Defendant BHRC has failed to meet its burden of showing a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties.

 

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Conclusion 

Defendant Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Centre’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Defendant to give notice.