This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/16/2020 at 00:58:21 (UTC).

CLM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS LILIANA ARRIAGA FRANCO, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/02/2020 CLM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against LILIANA ARRIAGA FRANCO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0002

  • Filing Date:

    01/02/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioner

CLM FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.

Respondents

VALENCIA TIZOC

FRANCO LILIANA ARRIAGA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

MURPHY PAT

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

9/23/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

9/23/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Re Service Efforts

10/5/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Re Service Efforts

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

10/14/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

7/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

1/2/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

1/2/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/2/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

1/2/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Petition (name extension) - Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

1/2/2020: Petition (name extension) - Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/09/2020
  • Hearing11/09/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Petition (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION scheduled for 10/14/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 11/09/2020 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketDeclaration Re Service Efforts; Filed by: CLM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: CLM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. (Petitioner); As to: TIZOC VALENCIA (Respondent); Proof of Mailing Date: 09/13/2020; Service Cost: 108.20; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: CLM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. (Petitioner); As to: LILIANA ARRIAGA FRANCO (Respondent); Proof of Mailing Date: 09/13/2020; Service Cost: 108.20; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION scheduled for 07/15/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 10/14/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION scheduled for 05/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 07/15/2020 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION scheduled for 05/07/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • DocketPetition TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; Filed by: CLM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. (Petitioner); As to: LILIANA ARRIAGA FRANCO (Respondent); TIZOC VALENCIA (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: CLM FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. (Petitioner); As to: LILIANA ARRIAGA FRANCO (Respondent); TIZOC VALENCIA (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP00002    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: 26

CLM Financial Services, Inc. v. Franco, et al

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq., 638)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner CLM Financial Services, Inc’s Petition to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 28, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR

ANALYSIS:

Petitioner CLM Financial Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Compel Arbitration against Respondents Liliana Arriaga Franco and Tizoc Valencia (“Respondents”) on January 2, 2020.

The Petition initially came for hearing on July 15, 2020, at which time the Court found no proof of service of the Petition or notice of hearing had been filed. (Minute Order, 7/15/20.) The Court continued the hearing and ordered Petitioner to file proof of service in conformity with the statutory requirements. (Ibid.) The Court also ordered Petitioner to file a supplemental declaration with six proposed arbitrators’ relevant professional experience, rates for arbitration services, and any other pertinent information Petitioner wishes to include. (Ibid.)

On September 23, 2020, Petitioner filed proofs of substitute service; on October 5, 2020, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (a).)

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such 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, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a)-(b).)

As with other types of agreements, “[t]he 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.) “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’” (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.) The party petitioning to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and party opposing petition must meet the same evidentiary burden to prove any facts necessary to its defense. The trial court acts as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Provencio v. WMA Securities, Inc. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1031.) If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

Discussion

Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

Petitioner presents evidence that it entered into a California Residential Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) with Respondents on or about January 31, 2019 with respect to certain real property located at 23509 Via Boscana, Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, California. (Pet., ¶6 and Exh. A.) The Agreement includes an arbitration provision that states in relevant part: “The Parties agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” (Id. at Exh. A, ¶22B.) Following Respondents’ failure to respond to a request to mediate, Petitioner served Respondents with a demand to arbitrate. (Id. at ¶¶13-16.) Respondents did not respond. (Ibid.) The arbitration agreement is signed by both parties. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶22B.)

Based on this evidence, Petitioner has carried its burden to demonstrate the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties with respect to the claims that are at issue in this action.

Defense to Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement

The burden now shifts to Respondents to prove any facts necessary to defense to enforcement of the arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner has now demonstrated that Respondents were served with the instant Petition and given notice of the hearing date as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4. (Proofs of Service, 9/23/20.)

Respondents have not filed any opposition to the Petition.

Selection of Arbitrator

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 states in relevant part:

If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed. If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.

When a petition is made to the court to appoint a neutral arbitrator, the court shall nominate five persons from lists of persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration or obtained from a governmental agency concerned with arbitration or private disinterested association concerned with arbitration. The parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may within five days of receipt of notice of the nominees from the court jointly select the arbitrator whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees. If the parties fail to select an arbitrator within the five-day period, the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.6.) Where, as here, the agreement does not provide a method for selecting an arbitrator and there has been no agreement between the parties as to the selection method, the Court must nominate persons to whom the parties may object within five days. Per Petitioner’s recommendation, the Court nominates the following arbitrators: (1) Hon. Frank Y. Jackson; (2) Hon. Victor I. Reichman; and (3) Hon. Jack Newman. (Pet., Exh. H.) If no objection is made to the nominees within five days’ notice of this order, the Court will appoint Hon. Jack Newman as the arbitrator.

Conclusion

Petitioner CLM Financial Services, Inc’s Petition to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 28, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP00002    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 26

CLM Financial Services, Inc. v. Franco, et al.

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq., 638)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner CLM Financial Services, Inc’s Petition to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 14, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioner CLM Financial Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed the instant verified Petition to Compel Arbitration against Respondents Liliana Arriaga Franco and Tizoc Valencia (“Respondents”) on January 2, 2020. No proof of service of the Petition or notice of hearing has been filed. Also, to date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (a).)

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such 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, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a)-(b).)

As with other types of agreements, “[t]he 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.) “California law, ‘like [federal law], reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration agreements and requires close judicial scrutiny of waiver claims.’” (Wagner Const. Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19, 31.) The party petitioning to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and party opposing petition must meet the same evidentiary burden to prove any facts necessary to its defense. The trial court acts as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Provencio v. WMA Securities, Inc. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1031.) If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

Discussion

Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

Petitioner presents evidence that it entered into a California Residential Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) with Respondents on or about January 31, 2019 with respect to certain real property located at 23509 Via Boscana, Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, California. (Pet., ¶6 and Exh. A.) The Agreement includes an arbitration provision that states in relevant part: “The Parties agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” (Id. at Exh. A, ¶22B.) Following Respondents’ failure to respond to a request to mediate, Petitioner served Respondents with a demand to arbitrate. (Id. at ¶¶13-16.) Respondents did not respond. (Ibid.) The arbitration agreement is signed by both parties. (Id. at Exh. A, ¶22B.)

Based on this evidence, Petitioner has carried its burden to demonstrate the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties with respect to the claims that are at issue in this action.

Defense to Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement

The burden now shifts to Respondents to prove any facts necessary to defense to enforcement of the arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. There is no evidence, however, that Respondents have been served with the instant Petition or given notice of the hearing date as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4. Failure to give notice is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)

Without proof of service or opposition from Respondents, the Court cannot find that the notice requirements have been satisfied.

Selection of Arbitrator

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 states in relevant part:

If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed. If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.

When a petition is made to the court to appoint a neutral arbitrator, the court shall nominate five persons from lists of persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration or obtained from a governmental agency concerned with arbitration or private disinterested association concerned with arbitration. The parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may within five days of receipt of notice of the nominees from the court jointly select the arbitrator whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees. If the parties fail to select an arbitrator within the five-day period, the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.6.) Where, as here, the agreement does not provide a method for selecting an arbitrator and there has been no agreement between the parties as to the selection method, the Court must nominate five persons to whom the parties may object within five-days. Petitioner is ordered to file a supplemental declaration with six proposed arbitrators’ relevant professional experience, rates for arbitration services, and any other pertinent information Petitioner wishes to include. Upon receipt of the supplemental declaration, the Court will nominate five of the proposed arbitrators from which the parties may select, or the Court may appoint, an arbitrator.

Conclusion

Petitioner CLM Financial Services, Inc’s Petition to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 14, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEW HEARING DATE, PETITIONER IS TO FILE AND SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE OF THE PETITION AND NOTICE OF HEARING, AND THE LIST OF ARBITRATORS TO BE NOMINATED BY THE COURT. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE PETITION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.