Case Number: BS171761 Hearing Date: March 23, 2018 Dept: 32
JOY STANLEY LAW CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
PAUL ABATEMARCO., et al.,
Respondent.
Case No.: BS171761
Hearing Date: March 23, 2018
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
PETITION to compel binding arbitration and for court appointment of an arbitrator
DISCUSSION
“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate a controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists….” (CCP § 1281.2.) The right to compel arbitration exists unless the court finds that the right has been waived by a party’s conduct, other grounds exist for revocation of the agreement, or where a pending court action arising out of the same transaction creates the possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (CCP § 1281.2(a)-(c).) “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 223, 236.)
Petitioner Joy Stanley Law Corporation (“Petitioner”) moves to compel Respondent Paul Abatemarco (“Respondent”) to arbitration. Petitioner submits evidence of a written agreement between the parties. The parties entered into an agreement for legal services containing an arbitration clause. Petitioner now asserts that a controversy has arisen between the parties regarding the payment of fees. Respondent does not oppose the petition to dispute this showing. Accordingly, the petition is GRANTED.
Petitioner requests the Court appoint one of the following retired Judges to act as an Arbitrator: Hon. Aviva Bobb, Hon. Arnold Gold, or Hon. Judge John Ouderkirk. The Court appoints the Honorable Arnold Gold with ARC as the neutral.