Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.)
“[T]he party moving to compel arbitration bears the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. The role of the trial court is to sit as a trier of fact, weighing any affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, together with oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a determination on the issue of arbitrability.” (Hotels Nev. v. L.A. Pac. Ctr., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 758.)
The party moving to compel arbitration must establish that it demanded arbitration from the other party, and that the other party refused to agree to arbitration. (Hernandez v. Ross Stores, Inc. (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 171, 176; Mansouri v. Super. Ct. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 633, 640-641.)
Once petitioners allege that an arbitration agreement exists, the burden shifts to respondents to prove the falsity of the purported agreement, and no evidence or authentication is required to find the arbitration agreement exists. (See Condee v. Longwood Mgt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) If the existence of the agreement is challenged, “petitioner bears the burden of proving [the arbitration agreement’s] existence by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413; see also Espejo v. S. Calif. Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1058-1060.)
If the other party has already filed a complaint in court alleging claims that are covered by the arbitration agreement, then the party moving for arbitration need not show that it demanded arbitration and that the plaintiff refused, since the filing of the complaint effectively constitutes a refusal to arbitrate. (Hyundai Amco Am., Inc. v. S3H, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 572, 574.)
“Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint, the claimant shall file and serve a motion and notice of motion pursuant to Section 1281.4 to stay the action pending the arbitration of any issue, question, or dispute that is claimed to be arbitrable under the agreement and that is relevant to the action to enforce the claim of lien. The failure of a claimant to comply with this subdivision is a waiver of the claimant’s right to compel arbitration.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.5(b).)
Underwriters at Lloyd's of London (2005) 36 Cal.4th 495, 502), imposes the burden of proof on the party resisting arbitration (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of Cal. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686-687), and compels the Court to construe liberally the terms of the arbitration agreement (Bigler v. Harker School (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 727, 738) and resolve all doubts in favor of arbitration (Vianna v. Doctors’ Management Co. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1189).
“[W]aivers are not to be lightly inferred and the party seeking to establish a waiver bears a heavy burden of proof.” (St. Agnes Med. Ctr. v. PacifiCare of Cal. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1195.) “There is no single determinative test of waiver, and the question for the trial court is one of fact.” (Guess?, Inc. v. Sup. Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 553, 557; see also Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436 (affirming waiver); Augusta v. Keehn & Associates (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 331 (affirming waiver).)
“California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’” (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pac. Mech. Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.)
“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists....” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)
In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, the court must first determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the dispute, and general principles of California contract law guide the court in making this determination. (Mendez v. Mid- Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534.)
A petition to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479; Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 515.) Because arbitration is a matter of contract, a party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute he has not agreed to submit. (Villacreses v. Molinari (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1223, review denied.)
“The failure of the [party] to carefully read the agreement and the amendment is not a reason to refuse to enforce the arbitration provisions.” (Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1115.)
The court shall not order the parties to arbitrate if the court determines that,
Waiver of the right to arbitration “‘does not occur by mere participation in litigation.’ [A]s an abstract exercise in logic it may appear that it is inconsistent for a party to participate in a lawsuit for breach of a contract, and later to ask the court to stay that litigation pending arbitration. Yet the law is clear that such participation, standing alone, does not constitute a waiver..., for there is an overriding federal policy favoring arbitration.... [M]ere delay in seeking a stay of the proceedings without some resultant prejudice to a party..., cannot carry the day.” (Adolph v. Coastal Auto Sales, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1450 (internal citations omitted).) “While engaging in litigation of the matter may be inconsistent with an intent to invoke arbitration, ‘the party who seeks to establish waiver must show that some prejudice has resulted from the other party's delay in seeking arbitration.’” (Berman v. Health Net (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1363–1364.)
“If the court determines that a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy exists, an order to arbitrate that controversy may not be refused on the ground that the petitioner's contentions lack substantive merit.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)
If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)
1-10 of 10000 results
May 16, 2022
San Francisco County, CA
Mar 04, 2019
Dec 28, 2018
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 02/06/2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Jan 04, 2019
Petition to Compel/Confirm/Vacate Arbitration (General Jurisdiction)
Apr 29, 2021
San Francisco County, CA
Nov 04, 2019
May 21, 2021
San Bernardino County, CA
Aug 19, 2022
Complex Civil Unlimited
Sep 08, 2021
San Bernardino County, CA
Apr 01, 2022
Complex Civil Unlimited
PETITION / MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (CCP §§ 382, 389) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Elida Erazo’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and Cross-Complainant Los Angeles Federal Credit Union’s Motion to Compel Arbitration are CONTINUED to June 6, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94. The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefing to further explain the legal basis for compelling arbitration an...
..Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Erazo, Karim Jabarin (“Jabarin”), and Southcoast Automotive Liquidators, Inc. (“SAL”). Before the Cross-Complaint was filed, Erazo filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration (the “Petition”) on September 14, seeking an order compelling LAFCU to submit to arbitration for the controversy alleged in the Complaint. On October 29, 2018, LAFCU opposed the Petition....
Apr 24, 2019
James E. Blancarte or Wendy Chang
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration Tentative Ruling: To deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, and the motion to stay the action pending completion of the arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1281.2; 1281.4.) Explanation: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging t...
..§ 1281.2, subd. (a), emphasis added.) The party moving to compel arbitration must establish that it demanded arbitration from the other party, and that the other party refused to agree to arbitration. (Mansouri v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 633, 640-641.) However, if the other party has already filed a complaint in court alleging claims that are covered by the arbitration agreement, the...
Jun 20, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Compel Arbitration Motion Compel Arbitration ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiff Alderman & Sons, Inc.: Barton C. Merrill For Defendant Armstrong Associates, Inc.: Linda L. Northrup, Northrup Schlueter For Defendant Arlington Theatre Property, LLC: Peter C. Sheridan, Olivia M. Weiss, Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP RULING: For the reasons set forth herein, the motio...
..on for breach of contract and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien against defendants Arlington Theatre Property, LLC (Arlington) and Armstrong Associates, Inc. (Armstrong). The complaint alleges that Alderman entered into written contracts with Armstrong to provide labor, materials, equipment, and services to be used in the construction of condominiums (the Project). (Complaint, ¶ 4 &am...
Sep 10, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 78 STEPHEN WARNE; Petitioner, vs. YORK RISK SERVICES, et al.; Respondent. Case No.: 19STCP02316 Hearing Date: September 3, 2019 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Petitioner Stephen Warne’s Motion to compel arbitration Petitioner Stephen Warne’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This is a petition to compel arbitr...
..ndents filed an Opposition on July 19, 2019. Warne filed a Reply on July 23, 2019. This Court continued the hearing on this matter from August 1, 2019 to September 3, 2019 for a written stipulation regarding selection of an arbitrator. Warne filed a Notice to Vacate the motion on August 29, 2019. Warne appears to intend to withdraw the motion by this Notice but since there is no such procedure...
Sep 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Arbitration BACKGROUND: Plaintiff bought a 2015 Ford Mustang from Joe Macpherson Ford dba AutoNation Ford Tustin (“AutoNation” or “Dealership”) on or about December 16, 2017, when she entered into the written “RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALE CONTRACT – SIMPLE FINANCE CHARGE” (“RISC”). ((See Declaration of (Richard J. May “May Decl.”), attached, ¶5, Exh. D, emphasis in original; Plainti...
..ted disputes includes those relating to the “purchase or condition of this vehicle” as well as any “relationship with third parties who do not sign this contract.” ANALYSIS: As a signatory, AutoNation invokes the arbitration provision, and moves the Court to compel binding arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims, and moves to immediately stay this action pending the outcome of this motion and through...
Oct 10, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.