19-CIV-04519 JOSEPH CROWELL VS. DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, INC., ET AL.

JOSEPH CROWELL DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, INC. SEAN MCHENRY LISA LIN GARCIA

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS BY DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, INC. TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s first through seventh causes of action, asserted against Defendant Dick’s, are subject to arbitration pursuant to the parties’ Arbitration Agreement. The present proceedings are hereby STAYED pending completion of the arbitration.

Defendant Dick’s has established the existence of an arbitration agreement, and there is no basis to deny enforcement of the Agreement under CCP §1281.2.

Plaintiff does not dispute that he signed a binding Arbitration Agreement with Defendant Dick’s Sporting Goods or that the claims against Dick’s are within the scope of the Agreement. Rather, Plaintiff contends that the Petition to Compel Arbitration should be denied because Defendant Melendez is not a party to the Agreement. According to Plaintiff, “this Court should not compel a party to arbitration who never agreed to do so.” Opposition, p.4. Whether Defendant Melendez should be compelled to arbitrate the claims against him, however, is not at issue in Defendant Dick’s petition. Pursuant to CCP §1281.2(d), the court may “order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action or special proceeding pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding.” Plaintiff provides no discussion of the options set forth at CCP §1281.2(d), no evaluation of the possibility of conflicting rulings and no discussion of analogous cases applying Section 1281.2.

Further, Plaintiff has provided no evidence that Defendant Melendez does not agree to arbitrate this dispute. Indeed, Melendez has not appeared in this action and has not filed any pleading responsive to the petition. See Bos Material Handling, Inc. v. Crown Controls Corp., 137 Cal. App. 3d 99, 112–13 (Ct. App. 1982) (reversing an order denying arbitration, in part, because “the record is silent as to whether or not any third parties would agree to submit to arbitration”). Accordingly, any claim that Defendant Melendez does not agree to arbitration, or that arbitration of the claims against Dick’s presents a possibility of conflicting rulings, is based on mere speculation at this point.

Plaintiff also contends that the petition should be denied because the intentional tort claims asserted against Melendez are outside the scope of the Agreement. Again, however, even if the Court assumes that Plaintiff’s claims against Melendez are not within the scope of the arbitration agreement, Plaintiff provides no argument or authority as to how to weigh this fact in determining whether to give effect to the binding Agreement between Plaintiff and Dick’s pursuant to CCP §1281.2.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.