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.