This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 04:36:25 (UTC).

BRIAN C. PEARCY VS WILLIAM MUSHARBASH

Case Summary

On 10/02/2017 BRIAN C PEARCY filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against WILLIAM MUSHARBASH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DUKES, ROBERT A. and PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9677

  • Filing Date:

    10/02/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DUKES, ROBERT A.

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PEARCY BRIAN C.

Defendants

MUSHARBASH WILLIAM

JB PETROLEUM

TOWN SQUARE M. PROPERTIES LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BERKE MICHAEL N. ESQ.

BERKE MICHAEL NORMAN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Unknown

10/2/2017: Unknown

Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/2/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons

10/2/2017: Summons

Complaint

10/2/2017: Complaint

Notice of Case Management Conference

10/5/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Unknown

11/3/2017: Unknown

Notice of Stay of Proceedings

12/8/2017: Notice of Stay of Proceedings

Minute Order

12/14/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

5/17/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/26/2018: Minute Order

Declaration

10/5/2018: Declaration

Notice

10/10/2018: Notice

Declaration

1/28/2019: Declaration

Notice

1/30/2019: Notice

Request

2/13/2019: Request

Motion re:

3/1/2019: Motion re:

Reply

3/26/2019: Reply

Minute Order

4/10/2019: Minute Order

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/10/2019
  • Opposition (Supplemental Opposition to Petition to Confirm MFAA Fee Arbitration Award; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support); Filed by BRIAN C. PEARCY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Status Conference (ReArbitration) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Petition to Confirm Award) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Arbitration; Hearing on Motion - Other ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Reply (Reply to Opposition to Petition to Confirm Fee Arbitration Award as Binding); Filed by WILLIAM MUSHARBASH (Defendant); TOWN SQUARE M. PROPERTIES, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Opposition (Opposition to Petition to Confirm Fee Arbitration Award; Declaration of Michael N. Berke; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support); Filed by BRIAN C. PEARCY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Notice (LODGMENT OF FEE ARBITRATION AWARD); Filed by WILLIAM MUSHARBASH (Defendant); TOWN SQUARE M. PROPERTIES, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • Motion re: (PETITION TO CONFIRM FEE ARBITRATION); Filed by WILLIAM MUSHARBASH (Defendant); TOWN SQUARE M. PROPERTIES, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (ReArbitration Decision or Lifting of Stay) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Re: Arbitration Decision or Lifting o...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 11/03/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by BRIAN C. PEARCY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by BRIAN C. PEARCY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2017
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by BRIAN C. PEARCY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2017
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069677    Hearing Date: January 13, 2020    Dept: O

Defendants William Musharbash and Town Square M. Properties, LLC’s petition to compel arbitration and stay court proceeding is GRANTED.

Defendants William Musharbash and Town Square M. Properties, LLC (“Defendants”) petitions to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2.

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, 413-14.) Section 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.”

Defendants contend Plaintiff Law Offices of Brian C. Pearcy, APC (“Plaintiff”), by and through its principal Brian C. Pearcy, entered into a contract on July 5, 2001 to arbitrate all claims and disputes. (See Declaration of Scott Talkov (“Talkov Decl.”) ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) In the contract, the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes arising from the contract, including those for fees. (Ibid.) The matter shall be submitted to binding arbitration before the arbitration panel of the Riverside County Bar Association. (Ibid.) Specifically, the arbitration provision reads as follows:

Any and all disputes of any nature whatsoever concerning the services provided by the Law Offices of Brian C. Pearcy, APC and/or charges therefor shall be submitted to binding arbitration before the arbitration panel of the Riverside County Bar Association.

Despite this clear provision, the parties disagree about which entity should hear this case in arbitration. Defendants contend that the language of the Agreement states without ambiguity that this matter should be heard in front of the Riverside County Bar Association (“RCBA”). Plaintiff contends that this matter be heard in front of the Riverside County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Service, Inc. (“Dispute Resolution Service”) because Dispute Resolution Service handles non-MFAA arbitration matters. However, Plaintiff fails to explain to the Court why Dispute Resolution Service should handle the arbitration other than suggesting that some individual named Lisa told him so. (See Talkov Decl. Ex. 18.)

The Court finds that there exist valid arbitration agreements that cover the claims asserted. An arbitration should be conducted before a panel of the RCBA. If, within 30 days of this order, the RCBA declines to provide a panel because it is limited to handling exclusively MFAA arbitration matters, the parties are ordered to meet and confer to provide the Court with an approved arbitration service within 60 days. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will order a status conference within 90 days and set the matter for a Court trial.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.