PENGHAK NGE VS CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC07872    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 25

Case Number: 20STLC08064    Hearing Date: February 22, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., February 22, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Serrano v. Rojas, et al. COMPL. FILED: 09-24-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC08064 DISC. C/O: 02-22-22

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, PETITION FOR COURT TO PICK ARBITRATION FORUM, REQUEST FOR STAY, AND REQUEST FOR COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jeovanni M. Serrano

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

(CCP § 1281.2, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jeovanni M. Serrano’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, Request for Stay and Request for Costs is CONTINUED TO APRIL 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 17, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff Jeovanni M. Serrano (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Rigoberto Varela Rojas dba RV Auto Sales (“Rojas”), Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services (“Westlake”), and Husdon Insurance Company (“Hudson”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, Request for Stay, and Request for Costs (the “Motion”) on October 9, 2020.

Defendant Hudson filed an Answer on November 20, 2020. To date, no opposition to the Motion 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

With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants Rojas and Westlake to submit their controversy to arbitration. (Mot., pp. 1-2.) The Court notes that on December 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Non-Service Report stating that Defendant Rojas was unable to be served. (12/11/20 Non-Service Report.) Because Defendant Rojas has not yet been served with this action or with the instant Motion, the Court has no jurisdiction over him. Plaintiff must file a proof of service demonstrating Defendant Rojas was properly served with the Summons and Complaint and with this Motion before the Court can issue a ruling.

Plaintiff also requests costs associated with filing this Motion. (Mot., p. 7:8-20.) “The court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1293.2.) “A petition to compel arbitration under section 1281.2 is a judicial proceeding covered by this provision.” (Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 796, 805.) However, Plaintiff’s Motion does not specify the amount of costs sought. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration detailing the costs incurred in this filing this Motion.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Jeovanni M. Serrano’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Petition for Court to Pick Arbitration Forum, Request for Stay and Request for Costs is CONTINUED TO APRIL 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental papers as requested herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.