On 05/18/2018 BERNICE PINEDO filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against DONALD R FREEMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
FREEMAN NANCY A.
FREEMAN DONALD R.
PERSICO MARIO A.
24 HOUR REAL ESTATE
BERGKVIST BERGKVIST & CARTER
CARTER PAUL JEFFREY ESQ.
MEYERS BIANCHI & MCCONNELL
REISZ FREDERICK STEVEN ESQ.
SANTOS ROWENA GUILLERMO
WONG WAI HUNG
9/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE)
5/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND MODIFYING THE TIME FOR HEARING ON 6...)
1/21/2020: Order - ORDER HEARING 1/21/20
1/22/2020: Notice of Ruling
10/18/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF AMY WONG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DONALD R. FREEMAN AND NANCY A. FREEMAN'S PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND TO STAY ACTION
9/17/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
2/26/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference)
1/14/2019: Notice - Notice of Ruling on Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
11/7/2018: Notice - Notice to Continue Demurrer and Motion to Strike
8/9/2018: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt
11/1/2018: Declaration - Declaration of S. Seth Kershaw in Support of Reply
11/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail
11/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail
11/9/2018: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt
10/29/2018: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt
8/24/2018: Declaration -
8/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail -
7/3/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Post-Arbitration Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department F; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Post-Arbitration Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 9:00 PM in Department F; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order advancing and modifying the time for hearing on 6...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order advancing and modifying the time for hearing on 6...) of 05/14/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (Notice of Trial Setting Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Responsive Pleadings); Filed by BERNICE PINEDO (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Order to Show Cause Re: (regarding service/answer/responsive pleading to the second amended complaint) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service (Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl-Original Complaint); Filed by BERNICE PINEDO (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service (Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl-Original); Filed by BERNICE PINEDO (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (AS TO MICHAEL BERDELIS ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by BERNICE PINEDO (Plaintiff); JOHNNY PINEDO (Plaintiff); KURTIS SAKATANI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC067159 Hearing Date: January 21, 2020 Dept: SEC
PINEDO v. FREEMAN
CASE NO.: VC067159
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
Defendants Donald and Nancy Freeman’s petition to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and to stay is GRANTED. The action is stayed pending arbitration.
Moving Parties to give NOTICE.
Defendants Donald and Nancy Freeman move to compel arbitration pursuant to CCP § 1281 et seq.
A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. (CCP § 1281.) The court must grant the petition to compel arbitration unless it finds either: no written agreement to arbitrate exists; the right to compel arbitration has been waived; grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (CCP 1281.2.)
The petition to compel arbitration, consequently, functions as a motion and is to be heard in the manner of a motion, i.e., the facts are to be proven by affidavit or declaration and documentary evidence with oral testimony taken only in the court’s discretion. (CCP § 1290.2; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414.) CCP § 1281.4 provides, “if a court of competent jurisdiction… has ordered arbitration of a controversy… the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had.”
“[T]he petitioner bears the burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence of any fact necessary to its defense. The trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination on the issue of arbitrability.” (Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 356-57.)
Defendants submit the California Residential Purchase Agreement, which contains an arbitration agreement at ¶ 22B. (Freeman Decl., Ex. 1.) The Agreement was signed by Plaintiffs Bernice Pinedo and Kurtis Sakatani (the Buyers) and Defendants Donald and Nany Freeman (the Sellers). The court finds Petitioners have met their burden of establishing the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate.
Defendants 24 Hour Real Estate, Mario Persico, and Michael Berdelis (aka the Brokers) filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Petition.
In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants waived any claim to arbitration and the arbitration will result in conflicting rulings because of Plaintiffs’ claims against the Brokers.
Whether a party to an arbitration agreement has waived the right to arbitrate is a question of fact, and a trial court's determination on that matter will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence… Since arbitration is a strongly favored means of resolving disputes, courts must closely scrutinize any claims of waiver. A party claiming that the right to arbitrate has been waived has a heavy burden of proof… In determining if there has been a waiver of an arbitration agreement, a court can consider (1) whether the party's actions are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; (2) whether the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked and the parties were well into preparation of a lawsuit before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate; (3) whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay; (4) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of the proceedings; (5) whether important intervening steps, e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration, had taken place; and (6) whether the delay affected, misled, or prejudiced the opposing party. (Sobremonte v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 980, 991.)
The court finds Plaintiffs have failed to meet their “heavy burden” of establishing waiver. Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and upon receipt of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter on 10/29/17, Defendants promptly agreed in writing to participate in mediation as required by the Purchase Agreement, which is the first step before arbitration. Further, immediately upon being served with the Complaint, Defendants demanded arbitration. The parties thereafter proceeded to mediation. Notably, Defendants never participated in litigation activities and never participated in discovery. The court finds that Defendants have not waived their right to arbitration.
Further, the claims against the Broker Defendants may be severed and stayed.
Accordingly, motion is GRANTED. The action is stayed pending arbitration.