Assadkhan vs. Newport Bluffs LLC

Plaintiff’s Objections on Leave to Amend:

Overruled as to Nos. 1 – 8 as Plaintiff did not make proper objections. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶¶ 9:105.5.)

The court continues the 7/6/26 CMC to 9/8/26 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.

Defendant shall give notice.

208 Assadkhan vs. The Motion to Compel Arbitration, filed on 3/9/26 Newport Bluffs by Defendants Newport Bluffs LLC, The Irvine LLC Company LLC, and Irvine Management Company (Defendants), is GRANTED.

As a preliminary matter, the Opposition presented by Plaintiffs Kimya Assadkhan and Tahmineh Sharifnia (Plaintiffs) was extremely tardy. Plaintiffs have not shown circumstances justifying that delay. However, as Defendants were nonetheless able to present a substantive reply, the court will exercise its discretion and consider the Opposition.

Defendants have shown that Plaintiffs entered into a lease with an “Addendum for Arbitration of Disputes and Class Action Waiver” (Addendum) which would encompass the claims presented here, and have provided a complete copy. (Kerzie Decl., Ex. 1.) The procedural requirements for the Motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 and Rule 3.1330 of the California Rules of Court are thus adequately met. The Opposition does not dispute that this is so.

Plaintiff instead argues that the Addendum is unconscionable. A delegation clause does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to address

unconscionability claims. (See Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 70-71.) But procedural and substantive unconscionability here are not adequately shown. Defendants have shown that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) applies here, which Plaintiffs do not dispute. The FAA preempts claims which would invalidate any arbitration provision in a rental lease. (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 341.) The Addendum reasonably limits costs that Plaintiffs may incur to arbitrate. (Kerzie Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 4.) Arguments as to the reasonableness of specific lease terms are issues to be addressed in the arbitration.

The Motion is therefore GRANTED. This action is stayed pending completion of the arbitration. The court sets a status conference re: arbitration for 3/29/27 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.