Preview
SUPERIOR, COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F STANISLAUS.
COVENANT CARE-CALIFORNIATLLC,
LARRY B DIGNES ' et a1, et
.
a1. -
vs.
Plaintifif(s) Defendant(s)
éAss no.: cv-20—004057
JUDGE: sounr=sr SANDHU Date: 01/03/2022
-Clerk2 A. Segundo .Modesto, California
Ruling-on
iDefendants’.Mbtion to Compel Arbitration
After issuing a tentative.rulihg on Defendants’ Mbtion-to Compel
Arbitration and hearing the arguments of counsel at the hearing on
December 101 2021, the court took the_matter under submission and
hereby rules as follows:
Petition to-Compel Arbitration-- GRANTED,
Based on the new evidence submitted in.conjunction with a prior
hearing, the court now finds defendant hasrauthenticated decedent‘s
signature-On_thé arbitration clause. Plaintiffs haVe not demonstrated
that both-procedural and substantive.unconSCionability exist.in such
amounts.that the arbitratien.clause should not be enforced, and the
court rejects any such arguments, instead deeming the arbitration
clause valid. (See, e.g;, Samaniego v..Empire-Today LLC (2012i 205
CallApp.4th 1138, ll44—ll45.) All evidentiary objectiéns are
overruled, either on the merits-or because they do.not pertain to
evidence-that Was essential'to the COurt”s analysis of the motion
CSee Reid V. Google, Inc. @2010) 50 Gal.4th 512, 532 [encouraging
parties and'trial Courts to focus Only.on “important” objections that
vane critical in resolving the summary judgmenthOtion31.) In
turning to the qfieStion of.how-and'whether'to enforce-the arbitration
clansej the court first finds that this arbitration.clause is subject
'
MINUTE ORDER Page 1
'
to The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), not the California-Arbitration
Act (0AA). The-arbitrationaclanse-explicitly-says that “the Agreement
shall be QQHStrued and enfOrced in aCCOrdance with=and-governed by
the FAA and not California law,” as-well as that “{sjubmission of any
dispute-under=this Agreement'to arbitration may only be avoided as
specifically allowed by'the FAA.” Paragraphs 8 and 9 or the BrUmmel
declaration, which state.that.defendantfs tacility receives funding
from.Medicare and Medi—Cal and that defendant obtains prodUCts in the
stream of commerce, meets-defendant's burden of Showing a link to
interstate commerce. (See valley View Haalth Care, Inc: v.
Chapman (ELD; Cal. 2014) 992 F.3upp.2d—1016, 1038—1039.) Because the
FAA-applies,-any claims that are subject to.arbitration must be
Subjected to arbitration.unless, under the-terms of the arbitration
agreement.decedent signed, the FAA allows the avoidance of
arbitration. (See also Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc- v. Qyrd'(1985) 470
0.8. 213, 217 (Byrd) (“We.agree with these latter courts that the
Arbitration Act requires district courts to compel arbitration=of
pendent arbitrable claims when one of the parties files a motion to
compel, even Where-the result would be the.possibly inefficient
.maintenance of separate proceedings in diffierent forums.”].) The-rule
on which plaintiffs seek'to.avoid arbitration is.derived frOm Code-of
Civil ProcedUre section 1281.2, subdivision (0) (section 1281.2(c)),
but “the.. . . FAAW contains no_provisign analogous to.section
1281.2, subdivision (c).” (Gloster v. senic Autom0tive, Inc. (20l4)
226 Cal.App.4th 438, 446 (Gloster).) The arbitration clause therefore
does not allow use of section 1281.2(c) tO'avoid arbitration of the
claims that are-subject to arbitration. (see Byrd, 470 Urs. at p.
217.) 'Those claims include any asSerted by decedent, who signed the
arbitration clause, Under Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838,
the court findS'that the.negligence claim-by all plaintiffs is also
subjeCt to arbitrationm HoWeVerr decedent’s danghters cannot be
bound to the arbitration clause-on their other causes of action,
which are based.on an-elder abuse theory; (See Bush v..Horizon.West
(2012) 205 cal.Appw4th 924r 929 [confirming the rule announced in
RuiZ'v. Podolsky does not apply to Wrongful death claims.predicated
on elder abuse]; Avila V. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc.
(2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 835; 844; Valentine v. Plum Healthcare'Grp.,
LLC (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1076.) The coUrt therefore orders
arbitration of the first five causes of action, including the elder
abuSe claim aSSerted by decedent beCause the arbitratiOn clause
expressly includes claims fior elder abuse. :The court stays the'court
-
-
MINUTE ORDER Page-2'
.action as to the sixth cause of action for wrongful death, which is
not subject to arbitrationJ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)
MINUTE ORDER Page 3
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
[1013a(3) C.C.P.]
STAEE 0F CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS)
I am over the age of l8 years and employed by the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Stanislaus, and not a party to the within action. I
certify that I served a copy of the attached RULING DATED 01/03/2022 by placing
said copy in an envelope addressed to the following:
Virginia Martucci, Esq.
YORK LAW CORPORATION
1111 Exposition Blvd. Bldg. 500
Sacramento, CA 95815
Matthew Schroeder, Esq.
J SUPPLE LAW APC
990 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Paid envelope was then sealed and postage thereon fully prepaid, and thereafter
was on January 3, 2022 deposited in the United States mail at Modesto,
California. That there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so
addressed, or regular communication by United States mail between the place bf
mailing and the place so addressed.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 3, 2022 at Modesto, California
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
BAngela Segundo, Deputy CIerkQ
Preview
SUPERIOR, COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F STANISLAUS. COVENANT CARE-CALIFORNIATLLC, LARRY B DIGNES ' et a1, et . a1. - vs. Plaintifif(s) Defendant(s) éAss no.: cv-20—004057 JUDGE: sounr=sr SANDHU Date: 01/03/2022 -Clerk2 A. Segundo .Modesto, California Ruling-on iDefendants’.Mbtion to Compel Arbitration After issuing a tentative.rulihg on Defendants’ Mbtion-to Compel Arbitration and hearing the arguments of counsel at the hearing on December 101 2021, the court took the_matter under submission and hereby rules as follows: Petition to-Compel Arbitration-- GRANTED, Based on the new evidence submitted in.conjunction with a prior hearing, the court now finds defendant hasrauthenticated decedent‘s signature-On_thé arbitration clause. Plaintiffs haVe not demonstrated that both-procedural and substantive.unconSCionability exist.in such amounts.that the arbitratien.clause should not be enforced, and the court rejects any such arguments, instead deeming the arbitration clause valid. (See, e.g;, Samaniego v..Empire-Today LLC (2012i 205 CallApp.4th 1138, ll44—ll45.) All evidentiary objectiéns are overruled, either on the merits-or because they do.not pertain to evidence-that Was essential'to the COurt”s analysis of the motion CSee Reid V. Google, Inc. @2010) 50 Gal.4th 512, 532 [encouraging parties and'trial Courts to focus Only.on “important” objections that vane critical in resolving the summary judgmenthOtion31.) In turning to the qfieStion of.how-and'whether'to enforce-the arbitration clansej the court first finds that this arbitration.clause is subject ' MINUTE ORDER Page 1 ' to The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), not the California-Arbitration Act (0AA). The-arbitrationaclanse-explicitly-says that “the Agreement shall be QQHStrued and enfOrced in aCCOrdance with=and-governed by the FAA and not California law,” as-well as that “{sjubmission of any dispute-under=this Agreement'to arbitration may only be avoided as specifically allowed by'the FAA.” Paragraphs 8 and 9 or the BrUmmel declaration, which state.that.defendantfs tacility receives funding from.Medicare and Medi—Cal and that defendant obtains prodUCts in the stream of commerce, meets-defendant's burden of Showing a link to interstate commerce. (See valley View Haalth Care, Inc: v. Chapman (ELD; Cal. 2014) 992 F.3upp.2d—1016, 1038—1039.) Because the FAA-applies,-any claims that are subject to.arbitration must be Subjected to arbitration.unless, under the-terms of the arbitration agreement.decedent signed, the FAA allows the avoidance of arbitration. (See also Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc- v. Qyrd'(1985) 470 0.8. 213, 217 (Byrd) (“We.agree with these latter courts that the Arbitration Act requires district courts to compel arbitration=of pendent arbitrable claims when one of the parties files a motion to compel, even Where-the result would be the.possibly inefficient .maintenance of separate proceedings in diffierent forums.”].) The-rule on which plaintiffs seek'to.avoid arbitration is.derived frOm Code-of Civil ProcedUre section 1281.2, subdivision (0) (section 1281.2(c)), but “the.. . . FAAW contains no_provisign analogous to.section 1281.2, subdivision (c).” (Gloster v. senic Autom0tive, Inc. (20l4) 226 Cal.App.4th 438, 446 (Gloster).) The arbitration clause therefore does not allow use of section 1281.2(c) tO'avoid arbitration of the claims that are-subject to arbitration. (see Byrd, 470 Urs. at p. 217.) 'Those claims include any asSerted by decedent, who signed the arbitration clause, Under Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838, the court findS'that the.negligence claim-by all plaintiffs is also subjeCt to arbitrationm HoWeVerr decedent’s danghters cannot be bound to the arbitration clause-on their other causes of action, which are based.on an-elder abuse theory; (See Bush v..Horizon.West (2012) 205 cal.Appw4th 924r 929 [confirming the rule announced in RuiZ'v. Podolsky does not apply to Wrongful death claims.predicated on elder abuse]; Avila V. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 835; 844; Valentine v. Plum Healthcare'Grp., LLC (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1076.) The coUrt therefore orders arbitration of the first five causes of action, including the elder abuSe claim aSSerted by decedent beCause the arbitratiOn clause expressly includes claims fior elder abuse. :The court stays the'court - - MINUTE ORDER Page-2' .action as to the sixth cause of action for wrongful death, which is not subject to arbitrationJ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) MINUTE ORDER Page 3 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL [1013a(3) C.C.P.] STAEE 0F CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF STANISLAUS) I am over the age of l8 years and employed by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus, and not a party to the within action. I certify that I served a copy of the attached RULING DATED 01/03/2022 by placing said copy in an envelope addressed to the following: Virginia Martucci, Esq. YORK LAW CORPORATION 1111 Exposition Blvd. Bldg. 500 Sacramento, CA 95815 Matthew Schroeder, Esq. J SUPPLE LAW APC 990 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Paid envelope was then sealed and postage thereon fully prepaid, and thereafter was on January 3, 2022 deposited in the United States mail at Modesto, California. That there is delivery service by United States mail at the place so addressed, or regular communication by United States mail between the place bf mailing and the place so addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 3, 2022 at Modesto, California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS BAngela Segundo, Deputy CIerkQ