Motion to Compel Arbitration
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME BAMIDELE YAZID VS UNIVERSAL HEALTH MOTION TO COMPEL
SERVICES OF RANCHO ARBITRATION SPRINGS, INC. Tentative Ruling: Defendant Moreno Valley SNF’s (RB) UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. As to this defendant, the action is stayed.
Arbitration is a matter of contract. (C.C.P. § 1281, 1281.2; Unimart v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 1039, 1045). A party to the arbitration agreement may seek a court order compelling the parties to arbitrate the dispute covered by the agreement. (C.C.P. § 1281.2.) There is a strong public policy in favor of arbitration agreements.” (Blake v. Ecker (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 728, 741.) “California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability and a requirement that an arbitration agreement must be enforced on the basis of state law standards that apply to contracts in general.” (Engalla v.
Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971–972.) Given the policy favoring arbitration, “doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues are to be resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 323; see also Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9.) Upon the petition/motion of a party to an agreement to arbitrate, the court must grant a petition to compel arbitration unless it finds: no written agreement to arbitrate exists; the right to compel arbitration has been waived; grounds exist for rescission of the agreement; or litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (C.C.P. § 1281.2.)
A petition/motion to compel arbitration must set forth the provisions of the written agreement and the arbitration clause verbatim, or such provisions must be attached and incorporated by reference. (CRC Rule 3.1330; see also Condee v. Longwood Mgmt. Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218–19.) The burden then shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate the falsity of the purported agreement. (Condee, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 218–19.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
In this case, Defendant RB has met its burden by providing a copy of the Arbitration Agreement (“AA”) signed electronically by Plaintiff Kereenyaga Bamidele Yazid on May 31, 2024. (Exhibit G). Carson McCusker, the Administrator of RB, declared that based on a review of facility records, Plaintiff was neurologically and cognitively alert and oriented at the time of signing. (McCusker Decl. ¶¶ 6-8). The AA provides that all disputes related to or arising out of the provision of services by the facility—specifically including actions for negligence, statutory causes of action, and Elder Abuse—will be determined by submission to arbitration.
The AA expressly states that it is governed by and enforced under the FAA (9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16). The FAA applies to contracts evidencing a transaction involving interstate commerce. Defendant provided evidence that it participates in federal Medicare and Medi-Cal programs, receives funding from the federal government, and procures
supplies from out-of-state vendors, thereby satisfying the interstate commerce requirement. Under the FAA, the court shall stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Accordingly, Defendant RB has established the existence of a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement governed by the FAA that covers the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint.