What is a Motion to Compel Arbitration?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Arbitration

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Arbitration

CHANGE HEALTHCARE PRACTICE MGMT VS SCHOENGOLD

The Court, of course, cannot grant a petition to compel arbitration if, as here, the parties already have agreed to and have initiated arbitration proceedings. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) So, if defendants are right, the Court can never issue a stay of a pending civil action which is also the subject of a binding arbitration because both parties agreed a petition to compel arbitration was unnecessary and the arbitration proceeding already has commenced.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

WINTEMUTE V. SKT LAW P.C.

Motion to Compel Arbitration and for Stay of Action (Motion), filed on 3-13-20 under ROA No. 49, is DENIED. Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 841-842, states, “ ‘ Section 1281.2 requires a court to order arbitration “if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate . . . exists.. . .” (§ 1281.2.)’ [Citation.] Sections 1281.2 and 1290.2 create a summary proceeding for resolving petitions to compel arbitration. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

JADE GREEN VS SHIPT, INC.

The motion to compel arbitration is denied.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PRISCILLA CAMPOS VS CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC

Proc. §1281.2, subds. (a), (b).) A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) Such enforcement may be sought by a party to the arbitration agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1280, subd. (e)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROGERIO ARBEX, JR. VS RHC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ET AL.

Defendants move to compel arbitration. “A strong public policy favors the arbitration of disputes, and doubts should be resolved in favor of deferring to arbitration proceedings.” Rowe v. Exline et al. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1282. A motion to compel arbitration should be granted unless there are grounds for revoking the contract, or the agreement clearly does not apply to the dispute. McManus v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 76, 86; Vianna v. Doctors’ Mgmt. Co. (1994) 27 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EYAL RAZIEL VS EXTENDED VISION, LLC A CALFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

CCP section 1281.2(a) provides that a trial court must refuse to compel arbitration if it determines that the right to arbitration has been waived by the petitioner. Engalla v. Permanent Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 982. Although a number of authorities properly caution that a waiver of arbitration is not to be lightly inferred, no single test delineates the nature of the conduct of a party that will constitute such a waiver. Id., at 983.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

OLIVIA HUGHES VS MICHAELS STORES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

After consideration of the briefings filed, Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The case is stayed in its entirety pending binding arbitration of the claims set forth in Plaintiff Olivia Hughes’s Complaint. Counsel for Defendant to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARIA GONZALEZ VS NBA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case No. 20SMCV00621 Hearing Date September 22, 2020 Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration Plaintiff purchased a vehicle from defendant NBA Automotive, Inc. pursuant to an installment contract. As part of the sale, plaintiff traded in a car, and dealer agreed to pay off the balance. Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to pay off the note on the trade-in. Additionally, plaintiff alleges defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank (“lender defendant”) is liable for paying off the note.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

SANTIAGO VS. DON ROBERTO JEWELERS

Motion to Compel Arbitration Ruling: Off Calendar – no hearing will be held. Defendant Don Roberto Jewelers, Inc.’s unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED, and the case is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. Defendant Don Roberto Jewelers, Inc. (“DRJ”) submits evidence that in connection with her employment with DRJ, Plaintiff Engracia Santiago (“Plaintiff”) executed a valid pre-dispute arbitration agreement on September 25, 2018. (See Motion, Declaration of Francisco Tinoco, ¶ 7, Exh.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

DAWN JOYNER VS LA BREA REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC , ET AL.

The Court must grant a motion to compel arbitration unless the defendant has waived the right to compel arbitration or if there are grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Under California law and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), an arbitration agreement may be invalid based upon grounds applicable to any contract, including unconscionability, fraud, duress, and public policy. (Sanchez v. Western Pizza Enterprises, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 154, 165-166.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CERTAIN UNDERWRITTERS AT LLOYDS' SUBSCRIBING TO COVER NOTE B0509MARCR1900001, ET AL. VS APEX LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

One of the nursing facilities petitioned to compel arbitration only as to certain causes of action, and its petition was denied by the trial court in part due to the risk of inconsistent rulings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.2, subdivision (c). (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARITZA GARCIA VS TRINET HR II HOLDINGS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a trial court to grant a petition to compel arbitration ‘if the court determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.’” (Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 50, 59, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) Accordingly, “when presented with a petition to compel arbitration, the court’s first task is to determine whether the parties have in fact agreed to arbitrate the dispute.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CAMPUZANO VS. CONTRERAS

Due to the extended court holiday and related scheduling delays, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation has been set for 11/9/20. The motion was served on 5/8/20. “The filing of a petition to compel arbitration does not automatically stay ongoing proceedings; the party seeking arbitration must request one.” OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 140. “A right to compel arbitration is not ... self-executing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

CAMPUZANO VS. CONTRERAS

Due to the extended court holiday and related scheduling delays, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation has been set for 11/9/20. The motion was served on 5/8/20. “The filing of a petition to compel arbitration does not automatically stay ongoing proceedings; the party seeking arbitration must request one.” OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 140. “A right to compel arbitration is not ... self-executing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

EMILY BOATMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS MICHAEL DOE 1 LAST NAME UNKNOWN AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

On June 9, 2020, Defendant filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Discussion I.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

CYNTHIA FLORES VS SHARON CARE CENTER, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Proc. §1281.2, subds. (a), (b).) A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) Such enforcement may be sought by a party to the arbitration agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1280, subd. (e)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALFONSO VARILLAS VS E & E RISTORANTE GROUP, INC, ET AL.

E and E now moves to compel arbitration and for an order to stay the instant action pending completion of arbitration. Plaintiff opposes the motion. “California law reflects a strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a relatively quick and inexpensive method for resolving disputes. To further that policy, Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.2 requires a trial court to enforce a written arbitration agreement unless one of three limited exceptions applies.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS KKW BEAUTY, LLC, FORMERLY KKW BEAUTY, INC.

On the same date, the Court also granted Defendant’s motion to seal: (1) portions of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a TRO and order to show cause re preliminary injunction; and (2) portions of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court issued a TRO on June 26, 2020 and scheduled an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued for September 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THE FILM ARCADE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS OA ACQUISITIONS LLC, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Generally, on a petition to compel arbitration, the court must grant the petition unless it finds either (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

ARMEN MANSSOURIAN VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Motions to Compel Arbitration On May 28, 2020, BMWNA and PBMW each filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims and staying the action pending the completion of the arbitration. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed oppositions to each of the motions. On September 11, 2020, Defendants filed a notice of new authority, Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486. On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed belated evidentiary objections to Defendants’ evidence in support of the motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANKIE PENNELOPE WRIGHT VS LQ MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

As such, the motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JIEYUN CUI VS CHUN-NAN LO, ET AL.

On July 23, 2019, the hearing on the writ of attachment was advanced and continued to be heard on September 20, 2019, a date after the hearing on a motion to compel arbitration brought by defendants Chun Non Lo, PID-5 and Pacificland International Development, Inc. The motion to compel arbitration was heard on August 30, 2019, and was granted. The case was ordered stayed. The writ of attachment was called for hearing on June 26, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KEC VS. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY

Pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s Opinion filed on June 19, 2020, for which the Remittitur was issued on September 11, 2020, this court hereby vacates its June 7, 2019 order granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and enters a new order denying the motion in its entirety. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

SEED BEAUTY, LLC, ET AL. VS COTY, INC., ET AL.

On July 9, 2020, Kylie filed this motion to seal: (1) Kylie’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and order to show cause re preliminary injunctions (opposition to TRO application); (2) Michael Rhodes’ declaration and accompanying exhibits in support of Kylie’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO application (Rhodes’ declaration); (3) Kylie’s motion to compel arbitration; (4) Kylie’s ex parte application to stay pending determination of its motion to compel arbitration

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANTHONY FIORIN, TRUSTEE OF THE FIORIN FAMILY TRUST, U/A DATED OCTOBER 14, 2017 VS BOBAK PARTIAL, ET AL.

.: 19BBCV00542 Hearing Date: September 18, 2020 (cont. from September 4, 2020) [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel arbitration AT JAMS On January 17, 2020, the Court granted Defendant Bobak Partial’s (“Partial”) motion to compel Plaintiff Anthony Fiorin, Trustee of the Fiorin Family Trust, U/A dated October 14, 2017 (“Plaintiff”) to arbitrate its claims against Partial. The remainder of the action was stayed pending the resolution of the arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 320     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.