19-CIV-02073 SEBASTIAN SANTACROCE, ET AL. VS. LURLINE ASSETS GROUP, LLC, ET AL.

SEBASTIAN SANTACROCE LURLINE ASSETS GROUP, LLC
BRIAN W. NEWCOMB GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY COURT PROCEEDINGS TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ first through fourth causes of action, asserted against Defendants Lurline and Jaojoco, are subject to arbitration pursuant to the parties’ Residential Purchase Agreement. The present proceedings are hereby STAYED pending completion of the arbitration.

Defendants have established the existence of an arbitration agreement, and there is no basis to deny enforcement of the agreement under CCP § 1281.2.

Plaintiffs’ first, second, third, and fourth causes of action are jointly asserted against Defendants Lurline and Jaojoco. Each of the causes of action arises from the same transaction governed by the parties’ Residential Purchase Agreement. Plaintiff does not dispute that Mr. Jaojoco served as Lurline’s agent and signed the Purchase Agreement on behalf of Lurline. Indeed, the complaint asserts that Mr. Jaojoco “was a manager of Lurline Assets Group, LLC” and “signed all documents to effectuate the sale of the Subject Property.” [Complaint, ¶ 4] The complaint further asserts that

There exists, and at all times herein mentioned, there existed a unity of interest in ownership between the Defendant Oscar Lito JaoJoco and Lurline Assets Group, LLC, such that any individuality or separateness between Defendants Lurline Assets Group, LLC and the individual Oscar Lito JaoJoco ceased and the Defendant limited liability company is the alter ego of the Defendant Oscar Lito Jaojoco in that Mr. Jaojoco has the sole control and domination of the limited liability company business and makes all decisions affecting the company.

[Complaint, ¶ 5] The facts of this case are indistinguishable from Dryer v. Los Angeles Rams, 40 Cal. 3d 406 (1985). In that case, the court held that “If, as the complaint alleges, the individual defendants, though not signatories, were acting as agents for the Rams, then they are entitled to the benefit of the arbitration provisions.” Id. at 418. In accordance with this decision, Defendant Jaojoco is entitled to compel arbitration as an agent of Defendant Lurline.

Although the court may exercise its discretion to “order intervention or joinder of all parties in a single action or special proceeding” pursuant to CCP § 1281.2(c), Plaintiffs have provided no argument or authority explaining why that is appropriate in the present case.

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is GRANTE