NELLY R RACZA VS J K RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC

Case Number: BC520168    Hearing Date: October 31, 2014    Dept: 46

Case Number: BC520168
NELLY R RACZA ET AL VS J K RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC
Filing Date: 09/03/2013
Case Type: Other Employment Complaint (General Jurisdiction)

10/31/2014
1. Conference-Post Mediation Status / 2. MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARB

TENTATIVE RULING: JK Residential Services, Inc.’s Motions to Compel Arbitration of claims by Plaintiff Nelly R. Racza is DENIED. The motion by J.K Residential services to compel Nelly R. Racza, Hye K. Kim and Digna Lopez to submit to binding arbitration are all DENIED. Defendant waived its contractual right to arbitrate these claim by unduly delaying this motion and waiting until the eve of trial (trial date 1/14/2015) to seek arbitration after engaging in extensive pretrial discovery over the 12-plus months that this action has been at-issue. The Kim motion is denied on additional grounds of lack of proof of a valid arbitration contract. See discussion below.

¿ This UPDATED tentative ruling is posted at 7:45 a.m. on 10/30/2014 and the matter is set for hearing on 10/31/2014 at 8:30 a.m. / If there are no parties other than Plaintiff/Petitioner, then Plaintiff/Petitioner may submit to the tentative without appearance by telephonic notification to the clerk of Dept. 46 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on a date prior to the hearing or morning prior to the hearing by calling (213) 974-5665, and the court will issue the tentative ruling as the final ruling. If the other parties have appeared in the action, then the parties must first confer and all agree that the tentative ruling will be the final ruling on the matter. If the parties to the matter before the court all agree, a representative of the parties may call the clerk and submit without an appearance, and the court will issue the tentative ruling as the final ruling. If an order is required, it should be lodged directly in Dept. 46 with a copy to adverse/other parties, if any.

Nelly R. Racza

Counsel, Aashish Bhargave (“Bhargava”) attests in her declaration that she “advised Plaintiff’s counsel early in this litigation th at Defendant may seek to compel arbitration.” (Bhargava declaration, Paragraph 4). The lawsuit was filed on 09/03/2013, almost 14 months ago. Defendant Answered the complaint over one year ago. The case was set by Judge Murphy for trial. It is apparent that Defendant counsel delayed until 09/08/2014 before sending out “correspondent to Plaintiff’s counsel to stipulate t binding arbitration.” (Id.) This instant motion was filed on 10/20/2014, less than 3 months before trial and one year after the Defendant filed its Answer.

The declaration of Mr. Koron indicates that Defendants brought up stipulating to binding arbitration in October 2013 but Mr. Koron indicated his objection thereto and defendant apparently did not follow up for one year. The parties have engaged in extensive discovery in this matter as set forth in the Koron declaration at paragraphs 9. 10, and 11. Engaging in the pre-trial discovery process without making a motion to compel arbitration over a period of a year is conduct inconsistent with an intent to invoke arbitration and an unreasonable delay.

Defendant has unduly delayed and waited until the eve of trial to seek arbitration. As such the court finds that defendant waived any right to arbitration and on that basis denies the motion. See Adolph v. Coastal Auto Sales, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1250; St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacificCare of California (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1196.

Digna Lopez

Although there are substantial issues related to the Lopez motion that are different from those for Ms. Racza; however, the has insufficient information to base denial of the motion on language grounds or on the grounds of forged signature on the arbitration agreement. However, on the same grounds and analysis as with Racza, the court finds that Defendant waived its contractual arbitration rights, if any.

Hye K. Kim

While Plaintiff Kim clearly contends that her signatures on the various documents were forged. Request for order compelling arbitration as to Kim is DENIED on the same basis as Racza and Lopez – due to waiver and on the additional grounds that Defendant cannot show a valid arbitration agreement as to Kim due to the contention regarding forged signature.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Frederick C. Shaller, Judge

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *