This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/13/2020 at 01:03:19 (UTC).

BERNICE PINEDO VS DONALD R. FREEMAN

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7159

  • Filing Date:

    05/18/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

SAKATANI KURTIS

PINEDO BERNICE

PINEDO JOHNNY

Defendants

FREEMAN NANCY A.

FREEMAN DONALD R.

BERDELIS MICHAEL

PERSICO MARIO A.

24 HOUR REAL ESTATE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BERGKVIST BERGKVIST & CARTER

CARTER PAUL JEFFREY ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

MEYERS BIANCHI & MCCONNELL

REISZ FREDERICK STEVEN ESQ.

SANTOS ROWENA GUILLERMO

WONG WAI HUNG

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE)

9/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND MODIFYING THE TIME FOR HEARING ON 6...)

5/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER ADVANCING AND MODIFYING THE TIME FOR HEARING ON 6...)

Order - ORDER HEARING 1/21/20

1/21/2020: Order - ORDER HEARING 1/21/20

Notice of Ruling

1/22/2020: Notice of Ruling

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

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

Notice - NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

9/17/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference)

2/26/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference)

Notice - Notice of Ruling on Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

1/14/2019: Notice - Notice of Ruling on Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

Notice - Notice to Continue Demurrer and Motion to Strike

11/7/2018: Notice - Notice to Continue Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

8/9/2018: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

Declaration - Declaration of S. Seth Kershaw in Support of Reply

11/1/2018: Declaration - Declaration of S. Seth Kershaw in Support of Reply

Proof of Service by Mail

11/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

11/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

11/9/2018: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

10/29/2018: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

Declaration -

8/24/2018: Declaration -

Proof of Service by Mail -

8/9/2018: Proof of Service by Mail -

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

7/3/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

69 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/11/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Post-Arbitration Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department F; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Post-Arbitration Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2020
  • Docketat 9:00 PM in Department F; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order advancing and modifying the time for hearing on 6...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order advancing and modifying the time for hearing on 6...) of 05/14/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Trial Setting Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Responsive Pleadings); Filed by BERNICE PINEDO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Order to Show Cause Re: (regarding service/answer/responsive pleading to the second amended complaint) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
107 More Docket Entries
  • 06/15/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service (Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl-Original Complaint); Filed by BERNICE PINEDO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service (Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl-Original); Filed by BERNICE PINEDO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (AS TO MICHAEL BERDELIS ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by BERNICE PINEDO (Plaintiff); JOHNNY PINEDO (Plaintiff); KURTIS SAKATANI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC067159    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: SEC

PINEDO v. FREEMAN

CASE NO.:  VC067159

HEARING:  1/21/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#10

TENTATIVE ORDER

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.