Request for judicial notice; Motion to compel arbitration and stay case
Case: Rosales v. Mariani Nut Company Case No. CV2025-2290 Hearing Date: June 25, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.
Defendant Mariani Nut Company’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.)
Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay case is GRANTED. (9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281 et seq.; Stenson Decl.) “A party seeking to compel arbitration of a dispute 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.” (Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1, 8; see also Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 348, 357; Harris v. TAP Worldwide, LLC (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 373, 380-381.)
The Court finds that defendant has established the existence of an arbitration agreement between defendant and plaintiff Andres Rosales. (9 U.S.C. § 4; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Jenks, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 8; Stenson Decl., ¶¶ 5-13, Exhs. 1-6.)
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?”
The Court further finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. (Rosales Decl., ¶¶ 4-12; Kinney v. United HealthCare Services, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1329 [both procedural and substantive unconscionability “must be present before a contract or contract provision is rendered unenforceable on grounds of unconscionability”]; Carboni v. Arrospide (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 76, 83 [“there is a sliding scale relationship between the two concepts: the greater the degree of substantive unconscionability, the less the degree of procedural unconscionability that is required to annul the contract or clause”]; see also Barrera v. Apple American Group LLC (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 63, 87 [same].)
This matter is stayed pending the completion of arbitration. (9 U.S.C. § 3; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)
If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
4 of 6