This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/07/2020 at 00:02:25 (UTC).

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP VS IL CIELO PARTNERS, LTD, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/12/2019 JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER MITCHELL LLP filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against IL CIELO PARTNERS, LTD. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4847

  • Filing Date:

    11/12/2019

  • 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

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioner

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP

Respondents

IL CIELO PARTNERS LTD

VERICELLA PASQUALE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

SEDOR DANIEL P.

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/18/2020
  • Hearing08/18/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Petition (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2020
  • DocketNotice Of Continuance Of Hearing On Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Binding Arbitration; Filed by: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Petitioner); As to: Il Cielo Partners, Ltd (Respondent); Pasquale Vericella (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition To Compel Binding Arbitration Pursuant To Ccp Section 1281 2 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities And Declaration Of Dan P Sedor In Support Thereof scheduled for 04/14/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 08/18/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Petition To Compel Binding Arbitration Pursuant To Ccp Section 1281 2 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities And Declaration Of Dan P Sedor In Support Thereof scheduled for 03/17/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 04/14/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • DocketDue to Clerical Error, Hearing on Petition To Compel Binding Arbitration Pursuant To Ccp Section 1281 2 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities And Declaration Of Dan P Sedor In Support Thereof scheduled for 03/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 03/17/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Petitioner); As to: Il Cielo Partners, Ltd (Respondent); Pasquale Vericella (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Petitioner); As to: Il Cielo Partners, Ltd (Respondent); Pasquale Vericella (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketHearing on Petition To Compel Binding Arbitration Pursuant To Ccp Section 1281 2 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities And Declaration Of Dan P Sedor In Support Thereof scheduled for 03/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketPetition To Compel Binding Arbitration Pursuant To Ccp Section 1281 2 Memorandum Of Points And Authorities And Declaration Of Dan P Sedor In Support Thereof; Filed by: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Petitioner); As to: Il Cielo Partners, Ltd (Respondent); Pasquale Vericella (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Petitioner); As to: Il Cielo Partners, Ltd (Respondent); Pasquale Vericella (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP04847    Hearing Date: August 18, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., August 18, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP v. Il Cielo Partners, Ltd., et al.

CASE NUMBER: 19STCP04847 PET. FILED: 11-12-19

NOTICE: OK

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO COMPEL BINDING ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO CCP 1281.2

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchel, LLP

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP §§ 1281.2, et seq., 638)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP’s unopposed Petition to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 14, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 14, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On November 12, 2019, Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (“Petitioner”) initiated this action with the instant Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration Pursuant to CCP § 1281.2 (the “Petition”) against Respondents Il Cielo Partners, LTD (“Il Cielo”) and Pasquale Vericella (“Vericella”) (collectively, “Respondents”).

A hearing on the Petition was originally scheduled for March 17, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. On March 18, 2020, the Court continued the hearing to August 18, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. (3/18/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.) The Court ordered Petitioner to give notice of the continuance and to file a proof of service demonstrating such notice was given. (Id.) Petitioner filed the requested proof of service on April 1, 2020.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

“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(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.) If the court orders arbitration, then the court shall stay the action until arbitration is completed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

  1. Discussion

 

On or about July 9, 2018, the parties entered into an agreement for general labor and employment-related legal services (the “Agreement”). (Pet., p. 5:4-7; Sedor Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.)

The Agreement includes an arbitration provision that states, in pertinent part:

“ARBITRATION AND WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL: THIS SECTION EVIDENCES AN ADDITIONAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN US TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES. BOTH OF US AGREE THAT ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN YOU AND US…ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING IN ANY WAY TO OUR REPRESENTATION OF YOU, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DISPUTES REGARDING OUR SERVICES, FEES AND COSTS, SHALL BE RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION.

As provided under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, the parties further agree that notice and service of any petition or other pleading in connection with an arbitration pursuant to this clause shall be sufficient if served by regular mail.”

(Id.)

Petitioner’s service of the Petition by regular mail complies with Section 1290.4, subdivision (a). (11/19/19 Proofs of Service.) Petitioner’s claims against Respondents arise out of their allegedly unpaid account balance of $15,572.70. (Id., p. 3, ¶ 3; Sedor Decl., ¶ 3.) Thus, Petitioner’s claims are subject to arbitration.

Petitioner also provides evidence that on or about April 25, 2019, it sent Respondents a Notice of Client’s Right to Arbitration under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act in connection with Respondents’ unpaid account balance. (Pet., Sedor Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) Respondents took no action. (Id.) On or about July 3, 2019, Petitioner served a demand for arbitration on Respondents regarding the unpaid account balance. (Id., Sedor Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 3.) Petitioner then filed the demand for arbitration with ADR Services, Inc. (“ADR”) as required by the Agreement. (Id., Sedor Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) To date, Respondents have failed to submit to arbitration with ADR. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

Based on the above, Petitioner has demonstrated the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the Court finds that there is no defense to its enforcement. Accordingly, Petitioner’s unopposed Petition is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP’s unopposed Petition to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.