2018-00234441-CU-OR

Anthony Mosley vs. Sarjit Singh

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Case

Filed By: Martinez, Daniel R.

Defendants Sarjit Singh and Kevin Singh’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to compel arbitration and to stay action pending arbitration is DENIED.

This action arises from services provided by plaintiff in pro per Anthony Mosley (“Plaintiff”) in connection with the development of property located at 3560 Jefferson Boulevard in West Sacramento, California (the “Jefferson Property”). Plaintiff filed his complaint for “preliminary and permanent injunctions, and for damages” on June 7, 2018. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to pay him for the services he rendered in connection with the Jefferson Property.

Defendants now move to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of a General Partnership Agreement entered into by and between Plaintiff, Defendants, and two other individuals concerning the ownership and construction of property located at 298 8th Street in West Sacramento, California [not the “Jefferson property”].

“Under both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.” (Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child and Family Svcs. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517; John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964).) “Absent a clear agreement to submit disputes to arbitration, courts will not infer that the right to a jury trial has been waived.” (Vista Del Mar, supra, at p. 1518.) “A party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate.” (Id.) “Once that burden is satisfied, the party opposing arbitration must prove by a preponderance of the evidence any defense to the petition.” (Id.)

On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy, the Court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the matter if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) the right to compel arbitration was waived by the petitioner; (b) grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement; or, (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. (Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)

As a threshold requirement, Defendants have wholly failed to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate the claims at issue in this action. Plaintiff has alleged claims in connection with the Jefferson Property. The General Partnership Agreement relied upon makes no mention of this property whatsoever. Rather, it concerns a wholly separate property located at 298 8th Street. While the parties to that General Partnership Agreement may have agreed to arbitration claims related to or arising out of that agreement, Defendants have presented no evidence that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising out of any agreement for him to provide services in connection with the Jefferson Property. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration and stay the civil action is DENIED.