Motion,Ex Parte: **Complex**Mabudian, M.D. et al -v- Beaver Medical Group, P.C. et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Superior Court of California
     County of San Bernardino
                                                                         SUPERIOR COURT GF CALIFORNIA
                                                                          COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
     247 W. Third Street, Dept. S-26                                        SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
     San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
                                                                                DEC 15 2022

                                                                    BY
                                                                         Samantha Neubauer




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                     COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
10
11    MOSEN MABUDIAN, M.D., an individual                 Case No.: CIVSB2133187
      and DONNA CODY, an individual
12                                                        STATEMENT OF DECISION ON
13                                                        MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION:
               VS.
14                                                          1. GRANTED FOR MABUDIAN
15    BEAVER MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., EPIC                      2. DENIED FOR CODY
16    MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, EPIIC
      MANAGEMENT, INC., JOHN
17    GOODMAN, and DOES 1 through 50
18                      Defendants.
19
20
21
22            On October 25, 2022, the court held a hearing on two motions to compel

23   arbitration, styled as petitions, brought by Defendants Beaver Medical Group, P.C.
24
     (‘BMG’), Epic Management Services, LLC (“Epic”), Epiic Management, Inc. (“Epiic’),
25
     and John Goodman (“Goodman”).            One motion pertained to claims asserted by Plaintiff
26
27   Mosen Mabudian, M.D. (“Mabudian”), the other to claims asserted by Plaintiff Donna

28   Cody (“Cody”).       Attorney Steven Velkei represented Defendants.        Attorney Theresa



                                                     A-
Barta represented Plaintiffs.

             After oral argument, the court took both motions under submission, and now

     issues this tentative statement of decision.           Absent a timely objection under California

     Rules of Court, rule 3.1590, subdivision (g), this tentative statement of decision will

     serve as the court's final statement of decision.

                                                            !

                                                    Introduction

             The motion to compel arbitration of Mabudian’s claims is based on an arbitration
10
     agreement between Mabudian and BMG.                   Epic, Epiic, and Goodman are not parties to
11
     the agreement.      Nevertheless, there are circumstances allowing non-signatories to
12
13   enforce arbitration agreements,’ and this motion relies on two of them:

14           (1) Equitable estoppel on the asserted ground that the claims are “founded in or
15   inextricably bound up with the terms and obligations” of the contract containing the
16
     arbitration agreement. (Goldman v. KPMG, LLP (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 209, 232-233);
17
     and
18
19           (2) Allegations that the non-signatory defendants were acting as the agents of,

20   and in concert with, the signatory.
21
             As explained more fully below, equitable estoppel does not apply, but agency
22
     does.   The motion to compel arbitration of mabudian’s claims against Epic, Epiic, and
23
24
25
26
27   1       Non-signers to an arbitration agreement may compel or be compelled to arbitration in six
     circumstances: (1) third-party beneficiary, (2) incorporation by reference, (3) agent, (4) equitable estoppel,
28   (5) alter ego/pierce the corporate veil, and (6) assumption. (Young Seck Suh v. Superior Court (Cha
     Hollywood Medical Center, L.P.) (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1513; Boucher v. Alliance Title Company,
     Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 262, 268.)


                                                           -2-