TENTATIVE RULING:

The petition by defendant Pegasus Remodeling, Inc. is DENIED.

A motion to compel arbitration must (1) allege the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, and (2) allege that a party to that agreement refuses to arbitrate such controversy. See Code Civ. Proc. §1281.2. “…[T]he 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” any of the following factors are present:

petitioner has waived the right to compel arbitration
grounds exist to revoke the agreement, or
a party to the agreement is also a party to a pending court action involving a third party that arises out of the same transaction or series of related transactions, and there is a risk of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.

Ibid.

A motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Section 1281.2 “must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.” Cal. Rule of Court 3.1330.

The motion complies with Rule 3.1330. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, there is no requirement that defendant or its counsel authenticate the arbitration provision. See Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp., 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219 (2001).

However, a party seeking to compel arbitration must “plead and prove a prior demand for arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement and a refusal to arbitrate under the agreement.” See Mansouri v. Sup. Ct., 181 Cal.App.4th 633, 640-641 (2010). Defendant does not offer any evidence of having made a prior demand for arbitration, or of plaintiffs’ refusal to arbitrate the controversy. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.