In The Matter Of The Application To Stay The Arbitration Of Affirmative Direct Insurance Company V. Ousmane Sawadgo, Blair C Thornton, Avis Budget Car Rental Llc., Andy Alba

Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Monday, July 15, 2024, Line 1. PETITIONER HAMDY FAYAD's Motion For Equitable Setoff Of Judgment And To Compel Satisfaction Of Judgment. Hamdy Fayad's "motion for equitable setoff of judgment and to compel satisfaction of judgments" is denied. Fayad has a 9/14/22 judgment against Gamal Amin and Nafisa Shafy. Four attorney-fee awards have since been entered against Fayad in this or other cases: 6/15/23 in favor of Shafy; 7/20/23 in favor of Silverman, LLC; 9/26/23 in favor of Silverman and 11/13/23 in favor of Machine Learning, Inc. Shafy, Shabab Amin and Gamal Amin. (Opp. 2:1-13.) Fayad wants all of the latter offset against the former. "The key to setoff is the requirement of mutuality" - "the debts must be due to and from the same persons in the same capacity." (Prudential Reinsurance Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1118, 1127 [cleaned up].) But Silverman, Machine Learning and Shabab Amin are not parties to the 9/14/22 judgment. Moreover, it is best to address offset issues once, at litigation's end, rather than fight a time-consuming offset battle after each skirmish. (See Keith G. v. Suzanne H. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 853, 860.) For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 202200565856CUBC: The Montclair vs. Baker Hughes 07/18/2024 in Department 21 Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss Claims The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court will CONTINUE the hearing to July 30 and allow defendant to submit a brief responding to plaintiff’s untimely filing of the declaration of Khris Kircher and claim that the plaintiff’s contractual provisions control as opposed to the arbitration clause contained in defendant’s Standard Terms of Purchase. Defendant’s brief to be served and filed no later than July 23 and no further briefing is allowed.

Case Number: 24STCP00760 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 26 JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA v. Tcheumani, et al. PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD (CCP § 1285, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner JPMorgan Chase Bank, NAs Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 16, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY SEPTEMBER 10, 2024, PETITIONER IS TO FILE A PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION AND NOTICE OF HEARING THAT CONFORMS TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE PETITION BEING DENIED. ANALYSIS: On March 13, 2024, Petitioner JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (Petitioner) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the Petition) against Respondent Gerard C. Tcheumani (Respondent). No proof of service of, nor opposition to, the Petition has been filed to date. Legal Standard Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) A response to a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award that seeks to vacate or correct the award must be served and filed no later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.2.) Discussion Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4 requires that the Petition and Notice of Hearing be served on Respondent in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice or [i]f the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made . . . [s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subds. (a), (b).) No proof of service of the Petition has been filed. Only proof of service of the Notice of Hearing has been filed, indicating it was served by electronic mail. (Notice of Hearing, filed 03/15/24.) As the arbitration agreement does not provide for the manner of service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing, those papers must be served in the manner of service for a summons. (Pet., Attachment 4(b).) Therefore, the Court cannot find that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 are satisfied. Conclusion Petitioner JPMorgan Chase Bank, NAs Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 16, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY SEPTEMBER 10, 2024, PETITIONER IS TO FILE A PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION AND NOTICE OF HEARING THAT CONFORMS TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE PETITION BEING DENIED. Petitioner to give notice.

Case Number: 23STCP04499 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 26 Roberts v. Caraccioli, et al. PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD (CCP § 1285, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner Jordan Roberts Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,532.05 PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST CALCULATED AT SEVEN PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM MAY 13, 2023 UNTIL ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. PETITIONER IS TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. ANALYSIS: On December 14, 2023, Petitioner Jordan Roberts (Petitioner) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Respondent Carlos Caraccioli (Respondent). The Petition was initially set for hearing on April 18, 2024 but continued the day before to May 14, 2024 with an order from the Court for Petitioner to give notice to all parties. (Notice Re: Continuance, 04/17/24.) At the hearing on May 14, 2024, the Court noted the lack of any proof of service of the Petition and hearing date and continued the matter to July 16, 2024. (Minute Order, 07/16/24.) On June 25, 2024, Petitioner filed proof of personal service. Discussion Confirmation of the arbitration award is sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, et seq., which states [a]ny party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) A response to a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award that seeks to vacate or correct the award must be served and filed no later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.2.) Discussion Service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4 requires that the Petition and Notice of Hearing be served on Respondent in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice or [i]f the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made . . . [s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subds. (a), (b).) Petitioner has not shown that the parties arbitration agreement provides for the manner of service of the Petition and the Notice of Hearing. It follows that the Petition and the Notice of Hearing must be served in the manner provided by law for service of a summons, which is set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.10 to 415.95. Petitioner has now filed proof of service of the Petition and the Notice of Continued Hearing Date by personal delivery to Respondent on June 22, 2024. Therefore, the Court finds that service of the Petition and the Notice of Hearing conforms to Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4. Service of the Arbitration Award and Timing of Service of Petition (CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4) Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6 requires that [t]he neutral arbitrator shall serve a signed copy of the award on each party to the arbitration personally or by registered or certified mail or as provided in the agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.6.) This requirement may be satisfied by service by the arbitrator, or upon proper service of the Award with the Petition. (See Murry v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 796, 799-800.) The arbitration award is accompanied by a proof of service by certified mail dated April 13, 2023. (Pet., Attachment 8(c), p. 11.) Also, a party seeking a court judgment confirming an arbitration award must file and serve the petition no more than four years, but not less than 10 days, after the award is served. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.) Petitioner has now demonstrated compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1288 and 1288.4 . Confirmation of the Arbitration Award An arbitration award is not directly enforceable until it is confirmed by a court and judgment is entered. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1287.6; Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.) The court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (CCP § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.) Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285.4 states a petition under this chapter shall: a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement. b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators. c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) The Petition complies with the above requirements. It sets forth the nature of the arbitration agreement and the name of the arbitrator. (Pet., ¶4.) A copy of the arbitration award is also attached. ( Id . at Attachment 8(c).) Substantively, the Petition demonstrates that Petitioner is entitled to an award of $18,532.05 from Respondent. ( Id . at Attachment 8(c), p. 10.) Attorneys Fees, Costs and Interest The interest sought by Petitioner, seven percent per annum from 30 days after the award was issued (May 13, 2023), is appropriate pursuant to Civil Code section 3289, subdivision (b). Conclusion Petitioner Jordan Roberts Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,532.05 PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST CALCULATED AT SEVEN PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM MAY 13, 2023 (30 DAYS AFTER THE AWARD WAS ISSUED) UNTIL ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. PETITIONER IS TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 24STCP01574 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 20 Tentative Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Case Name: Mariscos Choix, Inc. v. SD Design Construction Corp. Case No.: 24STCP01574 Matter: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Moving Party: Petitioner Mariscos Choix, Inc. Responding Party: Unopposed Notice: OK Ruling: The Petition is granted. Petitioner to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 20, 2024, Stephen Backus issued an arbitration award in favor of Petitioner Mariscos Choix, Inc. and against SD Design Construction Corp. Petitioner now seeks to confirm this award. Code Civ. Proc. § 1285 provides in relevant part, Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.4 states, A petition under this chapter shall: (a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement. (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators. (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any. Code Civ. Proc. § 1286 states, If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding. The trial court has but four courses of conduct once a confirmation proceeding is initiated: 1) to confirm, 2) to correct and confirm, 3) to vacate, 4) to dismiss, where a respondent is not a party to the award or is not bound by the arbitration agreement. ( United Bhd. of Carpenters etc., Loc. 642 v. Demello (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 838, 840.) No opposition was filed. The Petition to Confirm Award is granted because (1) Petitioner has attached the applicable arbitration agreement, (2) the arbitrator has been identified as Stephen Backus, and (3) Backus award has been attached. Petitioner to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case Number: 24STCP01843 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 76 The hearing on Petitioner Richard Alan Skelton, Jr.s petition to confirm arbitration award is CONTINUED to August 23, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Petitioner to properly serve a copy of the petition, as well as notice of the continuance of the hearing on the petition, and to file proof of service. ANALYSIS Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award Discussion Petitioner Richard Alan Skelton, Jr. brings a petition to confirm FINRA arbitration award. The petition to confirm must be served and filed no later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288) but may not be served and filed until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.4.) Although a petition to confirm arbitration award may be filed after 10 days of the service of the award (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1288.4), the hearing must be at least 100 days after the service of the award (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1288.2), which is the period of time in which the respondent may either file a file a petition to vacate the award, even if that time is beyond the 10 days in which the respondent may file a response to the petition. (Civ. Proc. Code, §§ 1285.2, 1290.6.) As articulated by the California Supreme Court, it appears that a response to a petition to confirm an arbitration award, which response seeks to vacate or reduce the award, may be served within 100 days of the service of the award. ( Law Fin. Grp., LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 946-47.) Here, the award is dated April 1, 2024, and was served upon the parties on April 2, 2024. The 100-day period following the service of the award expires on July 11, 2024. As such, this hearing is after that period in which a petition to vacate may be filed. The Court notes that FINRA has obtained a waiver from FINRA of the requirement to name FINA as a part to the action to confirm the arbitration award. (Declaration of Chad Weaver, Exh. E.) Any party to an arbitration award may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286 [bold emphasis added].) A petition to confirm a binding arbitration shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name any other parties to be bound by the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) The petition shall (1) set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement; (2) set forth the name(s) of the arbitrator(s); and (3) set forth or have attached a copy of the award and written opinion of the arbitrator. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4(a)-(c).) Cal. Civ. Proc, § 1290.4 governs the method of service of the petition to confirm arbitration as follows: (a) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice. (b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision: (1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4(b)(2) [bold emphasis added].) Here, the petition was served by e-mail only on June 7, 2024. A copy of the arbitration agreement was not attached to the Petition, so it is unclear whether the arbitration agreement permitted service by e-mail. As such, the Court applies Civ. Proc. Code, § 1290.4(b)(2) to require that the Petition by served by personal service, substituted service or mailing and notice of acknowledgment. Accordingly, the hearing on the petition to confirm arbitration award is CONTINUED to August 23, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Petitioner to properly serve a copy of the petition, as well as notice of the continuance of the hearing on the petition, and to file proof of service.

HOLLY GETLIN, AS TRUSTEE CVPS2403648 OF THE IRENE KARSIN FAMILY Petition re: Arbitration Award TRUST vs KARSIN Tentative Ruling: No tentative. Hearing will be conducted on Tuesday July 16, 2024 8:30 a.m. 7. UDPS2400128 KAMM vs. RUIZ Motion to Stay Tentative Ruling: Denied. Responding party to provide notice pursuant to CCP § 1019.5. On January 30, 2024, plaintiff landlords Gordon Kamm and Elaine Kamm filed this unlawful detainer action against defendant tenants Jose De Jesus Ruiz and Kassandra Huerta relating to property located at 77619 Ashberry Court in Palm Desert. Plaintiffs allege the parties entered into a written lease agreement on August 5, 2022, with a one-year lease extension entered on July 6, 2023. Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to pay rent from September 2023 to January 2024, totaling $17,750 in delinquent rent. Defendants now move to stay this UD action pending the civil action filed by defendants related to the subject property and directly impacts Plaintiffs’ entitlement to rent during the applicable period. Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that this motion is one of many meritless pleadings filed by Defendants to delay this action and the civil action does not involve title or ownership issues warranting a stay. Generally, Unlawful Detainer Proceedings The unlawful detainer procedures “provide an adequate, expeditious and summary procedure for regaining possession of real property wrongfully withheld by a tenant.” (Mobil Oil Corp. v. Superior Court (1978) 79 Cal. App. 3d 486, 494.) “In unlawful detainer proceedings, ordinarily the only triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention.” (Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.) All other damages arising out of the tenancy are recoverable only through an independent civil action. (Green v. Mun. Ct. (Renfro) (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 446, 450; Hudec v. Robertson (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1162- 1163.) Where the landlord and tenant are litigating issues of title in an independent civil action and an unlawful detainer is simultaneously pending between them, the trial court in the unlimited civil action may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action. (Martin- Bragg v. Moore, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at 385; see also Asuncion v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 141, 146-47.) In this case, Defendants contend there is a pending independent civil action that they filed relating to the subject property and which “involves breaches of contract, trespassing, tortious business interference, invasion of privacy, negligence, annoyance, associated emotional anguish, and other causes of action . . . which entitle the Defendants Jose and Kassandra to equitable compensation...” (Motion, p. 4.) The complaint in the civil action is not actually attached to Defendants’ declaration as stated, nor is the case number even cited. However, Defendants’ summary of the complaint clearly indicates that the action is one for damages related to their tenancy. An independent civil action unrelated to title issues does not warrant a stay of the UD action. Moreover, it is unclear why Defendants filed the motion in this UD action, as opposed to the civil action where the court has power to stay the UD action.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPP023790: GENOVEVA RIVERA BY AND THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CARMEN FLORES vs SVRTC LLC 07/16/2024 in Department 21 Motion to Compel Notice of Petition and Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration and To Stay The Superior Court Matter Pending the Hearing on the Petition The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court DENIES Defendant SVRTC, LLC’s Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration and Stay the Superior Court Matter Pending Hearing on the Petition. Defendant failed to show compliance with the requirements of 42 C.F.R § 483.70. Analysis Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of a valid Arbitration Agreement. Rather, the Opposition raises 4 grounds against arbitration: (a) that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not govern the agreement, (b) that the agreement fails to comply with 42 CFR section 483.70, (c) that the arbitration agreement was presented in violation of Health and Safety Code section 1599.81, subdivision (b), and (d) Plaintiff should not be required to pay the exorbitant arbitration costs. 2024CUPP023790: GENOVEVA RIVERA BY AND THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CARMEN FLORES vs SVRTC LLC The Court finds that the FAA does apply to this case. However, so does 42 CFR section 483.70 and the Defendant failed to show compliance with it. If compliance were found, which it is not, then under Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th 87, 96, Defendant woulfd be required to pay plaintiff’s portion of the arbitration costs or waive the right to arbitration and proceed in court. The Declaration of Ms. Flores establishes that Plaintiff does not have the ability to pay her portion of the arbitration costs. 42 CFR section 483.70, among requirements for Long Term Care Facilities stated that at paragraph (m): Binding arbitration agreements. If a facility chooses to ask a resident or his or her representative to enter into an agreement for binding arbitration, the facility must comply with all of the requirements in this section. (1) The facility must not require any resident or his or her representative to sign an agreement for binding arbitration as a condition of admission to, or as a requirement to continue to receive care at, the facility and must explicitly inform the resident or his or her representative of his or her right not to sign the agreement as a condition of admission to, or as a requirement to continue to receive care at, the facility. (2) The facility must ensure that: (i) The agreement is explained to the resident and his or her representative in a form and manner that he or she understands, including in a language the resident and his or her representative understands; (ii) The resident or his or her representative acknowledges that he or she understands the agreement; (iii) The agreement provides for the selection of a neutral arbitrator agreed upon by both parties; and (iv) The agreement provides for the selection of a venue that is convenient to both parties. (3) The agreement must explicitly grant the resident or his or her representative the right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing it. (4) The agreement must explicitly state that neither the resident nor his or her representative is required to sign an agreement for binding arbitration as a condition of admission to, or as a requirement to continue to receive care at, the facility. 2024CUPP023790: GENOVEVA RIVERA BY AND THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CARMEN FLORES vs SVRTC LLC (5) The agreement may not contain any language that prohibits or discourages the resident or anyone else from communicating with federal, state, or local officials, including but not limited to, federal and state surveyors, other federal or state health department employees, and representatives of the Office of the State Long– Term Care Ombudsman, in accordance with § 483.10(k). (6) When the facility and a resident resolve a dispute through arbitration, a copy of the signed agreement for binding arbitration and the arbitrator's final decision must be retained by the facility for 5 years after the resolution of that dispute on and be available for inspection upon request by CMS or its designee. The Declaration of Carmen Flores in Opposition stated: “This arbitration agreement along with other admission documents was sent to me as one large 102-page file for my electronic signature. The arbitration agreement was buried in this 102-page file on pages 80 and 81. At no time did anyone from Simi Valley Care Center explain any of this paperwork to me.” (Flores Dec., ¶ 5.) “At no time did anyone from Simi Valley Care Center explain the significance of this arbitration agreement, namely, that I was entering into a contract waiving my mother’s constitutional right to a jury trial.” (Id. at ¶ 6.) “Had I been informed that I was entering into a voluntary agreement waiving my mother’s constitutional right to a jury trial, I would never have entered into this agreement.” (Id. at ¶7.) Absent from the Declaration of Stacy Elstein is any statement of whether the agreement was explained to Ms. Flores, and that Ms. Flores has acknowledged that she understood the agreement as required by 42 CFR 483.70, subdivision (m)(2)(i) and (ii). Ms. Flores in her Declaration stated that the arbitration provisions were not explained to her. Unlike the general rule that one who reads an agreement is bound by its terms, 42 CFR 483.70 requires an affirmative action from Defendant as it states that the “facility must ensure” that the agreement is explained to the resident and/or the representative. Since this has not been shown in the petition, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to show compliance with 42 CFR 483.70.