Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 22STCV25765 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV25765, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25765 Hearing Date: January 13, 2023 Dept: 31

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

tentative ruling

Defendant Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Centre’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED.

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. The petition was denied without prejudice on November 01, 2022.

Defendant BHRC filed a renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration on November 10, 2022.

No reply or opposition has been filed.

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.

BHRC asserts that an arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”) exists between the parties that covers the claims Plaintiff asserts against BHRC. BHRC asserts that Plaintiff/decedent’s wife executed a Power of Attorney on December 01, 2020, that made her the agent of the Decadent/Plaintiff George Fuller. (See Bernabe Decl. Ex. B.)

In Garrison v. Superior Court¿(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 253, 265, the Appeal Court found that the power of attorney signed by the plaintiff’s daughter gave her daughter the authority to bind the plaintiff to the arbitration agreement. Similarly, Plaintiff’s wife had the power to bind Plaintiff Fuller to the Agreement when she signed the agreement on his behalf on May 14, 2012. (See Barnabe Decl. Ex. A.)

Existence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement

The initial burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement is on BHRC which has met its initial burden by attaching a copy of the Agreement to this motion bearing the signature of the opposing party. (See Bannister v. Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 541, 541-543 [“The party seeking arbitration can meet its initial burden by attaching to the petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the¿respondent's signature.”].) Alternatively, the moving party can meet its initial burden by setting forth the agreement’s provisions in the motion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330; see also Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)

¿“If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement.” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic¿(2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.) Here, there are no opposing papers disputing the existence of the agreement. Accordingly, the Court finds that an agreement to arbitrate exists.

The Agreement states, in the relevant part:

“Article 1. It is understood that any dispute as to medical malpractice, that is as to whether any medical services rendered under this contract were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered, will be determined by submission to arbitration as provided by California law, and not by a lawsuit or resort to court process except as California law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings.

Article 2. It is further understood that any dispute between Resident and The Rehabilitation Centre of Beverly Hills, its owners, operators, officers, directors, administrators, staff, employees, agents, and any management and administrative services company and all related entities and individuals, their staff, personnel, employees, owners, officers, directors, members, and agents that provide services to the Facility that relates to the provision of care, treatment and services the Facility provides to the Resident, (collectively referred to herein as “Facility), including any action for injury or death arising from negligence, intentional tort and/or statutory causes of action (including all California Welfare and Institutions Code sections and Health and Safety Code section 1430), will be determined by submission to binding arbitration and not by lawsuit or resort to court process except as California law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings. The parties to this agreement are giving up their Constitutional right to have all disputes decided in a court of law before a jury, and instead are accepting the use of

binding arbitration.

[. . . ]

Article 7. This Agreement relates to the Resident’s admission to the Facility, and the Facility, among other things, participates in the Medicare and/or Medi-Cal programs and/or procures supplies from out of state vendors. The parties, therefore, agree that the underlying admission to the Facility involves interstate commerce. Accordingly, this Agreement is to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and the procedural rules set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act shall govern any petition to compel arbitration.”

(Barnabe Decl. Ex. A [bold added].)

Accordingly, the Court agrees that the Agreement concerns Plaintiff’s claims against BHRC and should be compelled to arbitration.

The Motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Defendant Beverly Hills Rehabilitation Centre’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED.

The Court expects the parties to act expeditiously in scheduling and completing the arbitration. The Court sets a Status Conference on October 13, 2023, at 9 a.m., at which time the parties are to report on their progress.

Defendant to give notice.