Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings
PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 3 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. JONES TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR MAY 21, 2026, AT 8:30 A.M.
13. S-CV-0055740 LEGRAND, BRIAN v. LEGRAND, KAREN
The motion for protective order is dropped from calendar as no moving papers were filed with the court.
14. S-CV-0055852 VILLACARA, ADAM v. TARAS, CURT
This tentative ruling is issued by the Honorable Michael A. Jacques. If oral argument is requested, it shall be heard on May 21, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 40.
Petitioner’s Motion for Prevailing Party Attorney Fees
Petitioner moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,508.50 plus costs in the amount of $643.78.
Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (s) provides “the prevailing party in an action brought pursuant to this section may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (s).) In other words, whether to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. (Krug v. Maschmeier (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 796, 802.)
Here, the court exercises its discretion and denies petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees. A review of the record reveals respondent filed a response that confirmed he would not contact petitioner or petitioner’s family, tried to settle the matter but was rejected, and did not appear at any of the civil harassment order to show cause hearings. The court finds the uncontested nature of the matter does not warrant an imposition of attorney’s fees and costs.
15. S-CV-0056156 WILT, ANGELA v. U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings
Preliminary Matters
The court notes plaintiff’s opposition exceeds the page limits imposed by California Rules of Cour, Rule 3.1113, subdivision (d) by more than 10 pages. The court admonishes plaintiff that future pleadings must adhere to the page limits imposed by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113
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?”
PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 3 Thursday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings
PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 3 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. JONES TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR MAY 21, 2026, AT 8:30 A.M.
Ruling on Motion
Defendant moves to compel plaintiff’s claims to arbitration and stay the proceedings pending resolution of arbitration.
A request to compel arbitration under the FAA may be brought in state court. (Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984) 465 U.S. 1, 16; Main v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 19, 24, disapproved of on other grounds in Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394.) The arbitration statutes evidence a strong public policy in favor of arbitration that is frequently approved and enforced by the courts. (Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 706; Laswell v.
AG Seal Beach, LLC (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1399, 1405.) The FAA governs a contractual arbitration where there is a written contract involving interstate or foreign commerce or maritime transactions. (9 U.S.C. §§1, 2.) Where the parties incorporate the FAA into the agreement, the FAA governs a party’s request to compel arbitration. (Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 346.)
A threshold question for any motion to compel arbitration is whether an agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties. (Cruise v. Kroger Co. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 390, 396.) Defendant carries this initial burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.) A party opposing a motion to compel arbitration then “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense” including evidence challenging the acceptance of the agreement. (Ruiz v.
Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 842; Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165.) If the opposing party meets its burden of production, then the moving party must establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement. (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165–66.) “‘[A] party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.’” (AT&T Technologies v. Communications Workers (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648; see Cronus Investments, Inc. v.
Concierge Svcs. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 384–85.)
Defendant meets its initial burden to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. (Clark Dec’l, Exs. B–C.)
The arbitration agreement here applies to “any dispute, complaint, controversy, or cause of action arising out of or relating to your relationship with U‐Haul or any
PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 3 Thursday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings
PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 3 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. JONES TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR MAY 21, 2026, AT 8:30 A.M.
prior, current or future Transaction with U‐Haul. All claims, including assigned claims, brought under any legal theory, whether at law or in equity, are covered by this Agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, all statutory and tort claims, that may be asserted. ”
Plaintiff contends the arbitration agreements is unconscionable. To establish the defense of unconscionability, both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be shown. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125.) However, courts evaluate unconscionability on a sliding scale whereby a greater showing of procedural unconscionability requires a lesser showing of procedural unconscionability and vice versa. (Ibid.)
Courts determine whether an arbitration agreement is procedurally unconscionable first by determining whether the contract is one of adhesion. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 126.) If a contract is one of adhesion, then it contains “some degree of procedural unconscionability and requires [the court] to scrutinize the substantive terms of the contract to ensure they are not manifestly unfair or one- sided.” (Fisher v. MoneyGram Intern., Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1084, 1095.)
Substantive unconscionability, on the other hand, looks at the fairness of a contract’s terms. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 129.) Terms of a contract are substantively unconscionable if they “impair the integrity of the bargaining process or otherwise contravene the public interest or public policy or attempt to impermissibly alter fundamental legal duties.” (Id. at 130 [internal quotation marks omitted].)
First, plaintiff establishes a modicum of procedural unconscionability because the arbitration agreement is one of adhesion. (Roman v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1470.) However, plaintiff’s other arguments regarding procedural unconscionability are unpersuasive.
Plaintiff, however, does not meet her burden to establish the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable. Arbitration agreements may apply “retroactively to transactions which occurred prior to execution of the arbitration agreement.” (Salgado v. Carrows Restaurants, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 356, 361.) This occurred here.
Based on the foregoing, defendant made a sufficient showing of a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate between the parties and no defense to enforcement applies. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. The
PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 3 Thursday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings