This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/21/2022 at 18:32:36 (UTC).

JOSUE VALDEZ, ET AL. VS EULAIO OCEQUEDA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 08/09/2021 JOSUE VALDEZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against EULAIO OCEQUEDA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHAEL P. LINFIELD. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9255

  • Filing Date:

    08/09/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHAEL P. LINFIELD

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

VALDEZ FELIPE

VALDEZ JOSUE

Defendants

OCEQUEDA EULAIO

OCEQUEDA GRACIELA M.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SKLAN JEFFREY F.

Defendant Attorney

POURMORADY KOUROSH M.

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JEFFREY F. SKLAN RE HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

7/8/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JEFFREY F. SKLAN RE HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

5/24/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION)

Joint Status Conference Report

6/2/2022: Joint Status Conference Report

Declaration - DECLARATION KOUROSH POURMORDY

5/17/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION KOUROSH POURMORDY

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

5/17/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Notice - NOTICE OF PENDING ACTION PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 405.20

8/9/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF PENDING ACTION PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 405.20

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/30/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service

8/30/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Notice of Case Management Conference

9/2/2021: Notice of Case Management Conference

Notice - NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/9/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/9/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

9/23/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Answer

9/23/2021: Answer

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/5/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Case Management Statement

10/8/2021: Case Management Statement

Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA

10/8/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA

Motion to Compel Arbitration

12/2/2021: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

12/9/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

39 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/24/2022
  • Hearing08/24/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2022
  • DocketDeclaration (OF JEFFREY F. SKLAN RE HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION); Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2022
  • DocketJoint Status Conference Report; Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34, Michael P. Linfield, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2022
  • DocketOpposition (to motion to compel arbitration); Filed by Eulaio Ocequeda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2022
  • DocketDeclaration (KOUROSH POURMORDY); Filed by Eulaio Ocequeda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34, Michael P. Linfield, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
42 More Docket Entries
  • 09/09/2021
  • DocketNotice (OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE); Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2021
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE); Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • DocketNotice (OF PENDING ACTION PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 405.20); Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Josue Valdez (Plaintiff); Felipe Valdez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******9255 Hearing Date: March 14, 2022 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Deeming Facts Admitted and for Orders Seeking Responses Without Objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Admissions; Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,973.15 against Eulaio Ocequeda and Graciela Ocequeda and/or their Counsel of Record

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez

Resp. Party: Defendants Eulaio and Graciela M. Ocequeda

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s Motion for Deeming Facts Admitted and for Orders Seeking Responses Without Objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Admissions is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,973.15 against Defendants Eulaio Ocequeda and Graciela Ocequeda and/or their Counsel of Record is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez filed a complaint against Defendants Eulaio and Graciela M. Ocequeda to allege (1) Specific Performance, (2) Breach of Written Contract, and (3) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

On February 14, 2022, Plaintiffs moved this Court for an Order, pursuant to CCP 2031 et seq. to deem facts admitted against Defendants Eulaio and Graciela M. Ocequeda, and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,973.15 against Defendants and/or their counsel of record for failing to provide any discovery responses and for failing to meet and confer.

On March 1, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

1. Motion to Compel

Motions to compel further responses to discovery requests must always be accompanied by a meet-and confer-declaration (CCP 2016.040) demonstrating a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion. (Id., 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b).) They must also be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (Id., rule 3.1345(c).) "In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute." (CCP 2030.300.)

“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP 2030.300(c).) Any motion to compel further must be filed within 45 days from responses, supplemental responses, or a specific later date agreed to in writing. (CCP 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c).) Failure to file the motion within the specified period constitutes a waiver of the right to compel a further response. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The time period is mandatory and jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the Court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. (Id.)

A motion to compel further responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (CCP, 2030.300(a).)

“If ‘good cause’ is shown by the moving party, the burden is then on the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure (the same as on motions to compel answers to interrogatories or deposition questions).” (Edmon & Karnow, supra, at 8:1496.)

2. Monetary Sanctions

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP 2023.030.)

B. Discussion

1. Motions to Compel Further Responses

On October 28, 2021, Plaintiffs served by mail their first sets of Requests for Admission, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories. (Motion, p. 3:9-10, Ex. A.) On November 29, 2021, Defendants served responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Motion, p. 3:13-14, Ex. B.) Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion (although differently captioned) is really a motion to compel further discovery responses. Motions to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration and a separate statement. (See II.A.1 above.) While the Declaration of Jeffery F. Sklan fulfills the meet-and-confer requirement, Plaintiffs did not file a separate statement with their motion, in violation of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s motion to compel further is DENIED.

2. Monetary Sanctions

Monetary sanctions for abuse of the discovery process are not appropriate here. Since the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further, the Court does not hold that the discovery process has been abused in such manner that warrants monetary sanctions.

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s Motion for Deeming Facts Admitted and for Orders Seeking Responses Without Objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Admissions is DENIED.

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,973.15 against Defendants Eulaio Ocequeda and Graciela Ocequeda and/or their Counsel of Record is DENIED.



Case Number: *******9255 Hearing Date: April 29, 2022 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez (“Plaintiffs”)

Resp. Party: None

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez filed a complaint against Defendants Eulaio and Graciela M. Ocequeda and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, to allege the following causes of action:

1. Specific Performance

2. Breach of Contract

3. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

On April 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel arbitration in the present case. No opposition has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez request that the Court take judicial notice of the following pursuant to Evidence Code 451, 452(d):

1. Plaintiff's Case Management Statement filed October 8, 2021;

2. Court's Minute Orders dated December 16, 2021;

3. Defendant's Petition (Motion) to Compel Arbitration, together with Declarations of Defendants, Filed December 2, 2021 :

4. This Court's Minute Order dated: January 24, 2022:

5. Plaintiffs Motion to have the Court choose Arbitrator, filed February 14, 2022.

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

B. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 states:

“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 the revocation of the agreement.

(c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. For purposes of this section, a pending court action or special proceeding includes an action or proceeding initiated by the party refusing to arbitrate after the petition to compel arbitration has been filed, but on or before the date of the hearing on the petition. This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (CCP 1281.2.)

A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) Such enforcement may be sought by a party to the arbitration agreement. (CCP 1280(e)(1).) Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) The party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (CCP 1281.2.)

The petition to compel arbitration 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.) The petition to compel must set forth the provisions of the written agreement and the arbitration clause verbatim, or such provisions must be attached and incorporated by reference. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330; see Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218, 219.)

To decide a petition to compel arbitration, trial courts must first decide whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine whether the claims are covered within the agreement’s scope. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocer Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

C. Discussion

The Court finds that parties indicated their mutual willingness to arbitrate claims within the counteroffer that parties initialed and signed “concurrent with a Residential Income Property Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions.” (Felipe Valdez Decl., 2, 4, Ex. A, 31(B).) The operative language to indicate the parties’ assent to abide by this arbitration agreement is as follows:

"NOTICE: BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS YOU MIGHT POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND APPEAL. UNLESS THOSE RIGHTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION. IF YOU REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION AFTER AGREEING TO THIS PROVISION, YOU MAY BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. YOUR AGREEMENT TO THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION IS VOLUNTARY."

"WE HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND AGREE TO SUBMIT DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION TO NEUTRAL ARBITRATION." (Felipe Valdez Decl., 2, 4, Ex. A, 31(B).)

The Court finds that both parties initialed and signed this agreement. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. The Court does not find sufficient procedural or substantive unconscionability within the arbitration provisions to invalidate its use.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

The Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer regarding the selection of an arbitrator. The Court sets a Status Conference on May , 2022 re selection of arbitrator. If the parties have agreed to an arbitrator, they shall so notify the Court. If they have not agreed, then each party is to inform the Court, five court days prior to the hearing, of the names of at most 3arbitrators that party wishes the Court to choose for the arbitration.



Case Number: *******9255 Hearing Date: May 24, 2022 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Arbitration

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez (“Plaintiffs”)

Resp. Party: Defendants Eulaio and Graciela M. Ocequeda (“Defendants”)

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED, contingent upon prior mediation between the parties to address their dispute. Mediation costs will be borne equally by both parties pursuant to the Residential Income Property Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions, 31A.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez filed a complaint against Defendants Eulaio and Graciela M. Ocequeda alleging the following causes of action:

1. Specific Performance

2. Breach of Contract

3. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

On April 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel arbitration in the present case.

On April 29, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration to May 24, 2022. “Opposition and reply, if any, are to be filed and served according to code. The parties are ordered to meet and confer as to selection of potential arbitrator if motion to compel arbitration is granted.” (Minute Order, April 24, 2022, p. 6.)

On May 17, 2022, Defendants Eulaio and Graciela M. Ocequeda opposed Plaintiffs motion to compel arbitration.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez request that the Court take judicial notice of the following pursuant to Evidence Code 451, 452(d):

1. Plaintiff's Case Management Statement filed October 8, 2021;

2. Court's Minute Orders dated December 16, 2021;

3. Defendant's Petition (Motion) to Compel Arbitration, together with Declarations of Defendants, Filed December 2, 2021 :

4. This Court's Minute Order dated: January 24, 2022:

5. Plaintiffs Motion to have the Court choose Arbitrator, filed February 14, 2022.

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

B. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 states:

“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 the revocation of the agreement.

(c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. For purposes of this section, a pending court action or special proceeding includes an action or proceeding initiated by the party refusing to arbitrate after the petition to compel arbitration has been filed, but on or before the date of the hearing on the petition. This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (CCP 1281.2.)

A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) Such enforcement may be sought by a party to the arbitration agreement. (CCP 1280(e)(1).) Under both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) The party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (CCP 1281.2.)

The petition to compel arbitration 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.) The petition to compel must set forth the provisions of the written agreement and the arbitration clause verbatim, or such provisions must be attached and incorporated by reference. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330; see Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218, 219.)

To decide a petition to compel arbitration, trial courts must first decide whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and then determine whether the claims are covered within the agreement’s scope. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocer Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)

C. Discussion

The Court finds that parties agreed to arbitrate claims n the counteroffer that parties initialed and signed “concurrent with a Residential Income Property Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions.” (Felipe Valdez Decl., 2, 4, Ex. A, 31(B).) The operative language to indicate the parties’ assent to abide by this arbitration agreement is as follows:

"NOTICE: BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS YOU MIGHT POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND APPEAL. UNLESS THOSE RIGHTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION. IF YOU REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION AFTER AGREEING TO THIS PROVISION, YOU MAY BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. YOUR AGREEMENT TO THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION IS VOLUNTARY."

"WE HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND AGREE TO SUBMIT DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES' PROVISION TO NEUTRAL ARBITRATION." (Felipe Valdez Decl., 2, 4, Ex. A, 31(B).)

The Court finds that both parties initialed and signed this agreement. (Id.) Further, the Court does not find sufficient procedural or substantive unconscionability within the arbitration provisions to invalidate its use.

Defendants note that the Residential Income Property Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions states that “the parties agree to mediate any dispute or claim arising between them out of this Agreement, or any transaction, before resorting to arbitration . . . . Mediation fees, if any, shall be divided equally among the Parties involved. . . .” (Purchase and Sale Agreement Sections 31A and 31B, Opposition, Ex. 1.)

The Court will uphold the agreement as written and therefore will order mediation prior to any arbitration.

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Josue Valdez and Felipe Valdez’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED, contingent upon prior mediation between the parties to address their dispute. Mediation costs will be borne equally by both parties pursuant to the Residential Income Property Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions, 31A.

The Court schedules a Status Conference re mediation for , 2022.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SKLAN JEFFREY F.