JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP VS PACIFIC PROPERTY PARTNERS

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP03373    Hearing Date: February 18, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., February 18, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP v. Pacific Property Partners

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP03373 PET. FILED: 10-15-20

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO COMPEL BINDING ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP § 1281.2, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED TO APRIL 21, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

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 February 11, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 11, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On October 15, 2020, Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (“Petitioner”) initiated this action by filing the instant Petition to Compel Binding Arbitration (the “Petition”) against Defendant Pacific Property Partners (“Defendant”).

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 to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that 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 rescission 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 January 29, 2016, the parties entered into a written agreement for legal services in connection with the negotiation of a franchise agreement, management agreement, and related matters for the development of a hotel in downtown Los Angeles (the “Agreement”). (Pet., p. 1:4-8, Sedor Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) The Agreement contains the following a provision requiring that any dispute, claim, or controversy between the parties be submitted to arbitration to be administered by ADR Services, Inc. in Los Angeles County. (Id.) Petitioner’s claims arise out of Respondent’s alleged failure to pay attorney’s fees of $11,607.90 under the Agreement. (Pet., p. 2:20-25, Sedor Decl., ¶ 3.) Thus, Petitioner’s claims are subject to arbitration.

The Agreement also contains the following provision regarding service:

“As provided under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, the parties further agree that notice and service of any petition to confirm an arbitration award issued pursuant to this clause shall be sufficient if served by regular mail.” (Pet., Sedor Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) (Emphasis added.)

This service provision, however, does not specify a manner in which a petition to compel arbitration shall be served. Section 1290.4 provides that:

“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, subd. (b).)

A summons must be served personally, by substitute service, by mail coupled with an acknowledgment of receipt, or by publication. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10, et seq.) Here, Petitioner served Respondent with this Petition via mail and email. (11/4/20 Proof of Service.) However, Petitioner did not include a receipt of acknowledgment. (Id.) This is insufficient to meet the requirements of Section 1290.4. The proof of service also does not specify the person served on behalf of the entity Respondent. Thus, Petitioner is ordered to file a proof of service demonstrating Respondent was served with the Petition in accordance with Section 1290.4.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED TO APRIL 21, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.