Case Number: BC517269    Hearing Date: August 11, 2014    Dept: 56

Case Name: Scales v. Sunbridge Hallmarks Health Services
Case No.: BC517269
Matter: Motion to Compel Arbitration
Moving Party: Defendant
Responding Party: Plaintiff

Tentative Ruling: Motion to compel arbitration is denied.

Plaintiff Diane Scales, individually and on behalf of decedent Annie Scales, filed this action against Sunbridge Hallmark Health Services Inc. dba Playa del Rey Care and Rehabilitation Center (“Playa del Rey”) and other defendants. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) statutory elder abuse/neglect, (2) violation of Patient’s Bill of Rights and Health & Safety Codes, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) negligence, (5) unfair business practices, and (6) wrongful death. Plaintiff’s individual claims are the 3rd through 6th COAs and the successor claims are the 1st through 5th COAs.

Playa del Rey moves to compel arbitration as to all claims except the 2nd COA. The general standards which govern the motion are well settled: A petition to compel arbitration based on a written arbitration agreement must be granted unless grounds exist to revoke the agreement. CCP §§1281 & 1281.2(b). The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving any fact necessary to its defense. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (2007) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.

As to the first element, Playa del Rey must prove that an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties and that Plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of the agreement. Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961. General principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered into a binding agreement. Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 420.

Playa del Rey contends that Plaintiff executed arbitration agreements as Annie’s legal representative on 8/19/11 [Vaca Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. A-B]. In opposition, Plaintiff states that she was never asked whether she was Annie’s legal representative, she never informed Playa del Rey that she was authorized to contractually bind Annie, and she was not Annie’s agent under a power of attorney [Scales Decl. ¶¶ 6-8]. The documents submitted by the parties do not prove that Plaintiff executed the arbitration agreements as Annie’s legal representative. The lines indicating the authority of Plaintiff to sign as a legal representative are not completed [see Vaca Decl. Ex. A-B]. In Golman v. SunBridge Healthcare (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173-74, the Court of Appeal held under very similar facts that arbitration was improper where the arbitration agreement did not clearly establish authority to agree on behalf of a family member.

The evidence is also incomplete and confusing in regard to Plaintiff’s individual capacity. The arbitration agreements submitted by Playa del Rey indicate that they were made on 8/19/11, but Plaintiff’s signature is dated 10/20/11 [Vaca Decl. Ex. A-B]. The evidence suggests that there may have been several agreements that were executed at various times [see Lockington Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B and Complaint ¶¶ 80 & 83]. However, Playa del Rey has not explained the sequence of events, has not addressed the discrepancy in dates, or whether there were other arbitration agreements executed at different times. The evidence is unclear and unpersuasive.

Playa del Rey has failed to prove the existence of valid arbitration agreements covering Plaintiff’s individual and successor claims. The motion to compel arbitration is denied. In light of this ruling, it is not necessary to address the other arguments made by the parties.