Case Number: KS017984    Hearing Date: July 21, 2014    Dept: J

Re: Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Mt. San Antonio Community College District (KS017984)

PETITION TO COMPEL MEDIATION

Moving Party: Petitioner Safeco Insurance Company of America

Respondent: To timely opposition filed

POS: Moving OK

Petitioner Safeco Insurance Company of America and Respondent Mt. San Antonio Community College District entered into a written agreement dated March 28, 2012, and pertaining to the completion of construction of a Child Development Center. Section 8 of the Agreement requires the parties to mediate any dispute that may arise under the Agreement as a pre-condition to filing a demand for arbitration. Respondent is refusing to mediate by repeatedly and unilaterally cancelling mediations. Petitioner moves the court for an order compelling Respondent to mediate the subject disputes.

Petitioner Safeco Insurance Company of America (“Petitioner”) seeks an order compelling Respondent Mt. San Antonio Community District (“Respondent”) to mediate certain disputes arising out of a written agreement dated March 28, 2012, pertaining to the completion of construction of a Child Development Center (the “Takeover Agreement”). The petition is made on the ground that the Takeover Agreement calls for mediation of the dispute that has arisen between them, that Respondent refuses to actually mediate (despite agreeing to do so), and that Petitioner has no other adequate remedy to compel mediation.

A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. (CCP § 1281.) Accordingly, 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 such 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, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement; (c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (CCP § 1281; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)

The petition to compel arbitration is a suit in equity for specific performance. (Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Hock Investment Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 83, 88.) Nonetheless, CCP §§ 1281.2 and 1290.2 create a summary proceeding for resolving petitions to compel arbitration. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.) The petition to compel arbitration, consequently, functions as a motion and is to be heard in the manner of a motion, i.e., the facts are to be proven by affidavit or declaration and documentary evidence with oral testimony taken only in the court’s discretion. (CCP § 1290.2; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414.)

Petitioner submits evidence that that the Takeover Agreement calls for the disputes between the parties to be arbitrated. (Petition ¶ 1, Exh. A, § 7.) The Takeover Agreement also provides that the parties must mediate the disputes or controversies as a precondition to filing a demand for arbitration. (Id. ¶ 2, Exh. A, § 8.) Petitioner represents that although the parties have agreed to mediate on more than one occasion, Respondent has unilaterally cancelled the mediation on more than one occasion. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.)

Respondent did not oppose the petition, thereby conceding to the merits of the petition. Thus, the petition is granted.