By Defendant to Compel Arbitration
(34) Tentative Ruling
Re: Arkelian v. HumanGood Fresno Superior Court Case No. 25CECG01357
Hearing Date: July 7, 2026 (Dept. 403)
Motion: By Defendant to Compel Arbitration
Tentative Ruling:
To grant the motion to compel arbitration and order plaintiff Lurlynne Arkelian to arbitrate her claims against defendants. To deny the motion to compel Jeffrey Arkelian to arbitrate his claims and to stay this action pending the completion of arbitration.
Explanation:
Plaintiff Lurlynne Arkelian and Jeffrey Arkelian filed the present action arising from a trip and fall on the premises of The Terraces at San Joaquin Gardens. Plaintiffs are alleging causes of action for premises liability and general negligence after plaintiff Lurlynne Arkelian fell due to a sandbag and lost consciousness. The trip and fall was witnessed by plaintiff Jeffrey Arkelian.
Defendant HumanGood Fresno dba The Terraces at San Joaquin Gardens (“HumanGood”) moves to compel arbitration pursuant to Plaintiff Lurlynne Arkelian’s agreement to do so in the Arbitration Agreement1 signed in connection with her residence at defendant’s facility. (Isfeld Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)
A trial court is required to grant a motion to compel arbitration “if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2) However, there is “no public policy in favor of forcing arbitration of issues the parties have not agreed to arbitrate.” (Garlach v. Sports Club Co. (2012) 209 Ca1.App.4th 1497, 1505.) Thus, when a motion to compel arbitration is filed and accompanied by prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, the court itself must determine: (1) whether the agreement exists and, (2) if any defense to its enforcement is raised, whether it is enforceable.
The moving party bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. The party claiming a defense bears the same burden as to the defense. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414
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 moving party has the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.) A party opposing arbitration has the burden of showing that the arbitration provision cannot be interpreted to cover the claims in the complaint. (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 890.) Unless there is a dispute over
1 Plaintiffs’ objections to the declaration of Denise Isfeld are overruled for purposes of this motion,
as plaintiffs are not challenging the authenticity of the Arbitration Agreement attached thereto. 10
authenticity, the mere recitation of the terms is sufficient for a party to move to compel arbitration. (Sprunk v. Prisma LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 785, 793.)
In support of the motion, defendant presents the Arbitration Agreement wherein plaintiff agreed to arbitrate “any and all claims or disputes arising from or related to your CARE AND RESIDENCE AGREEMENT or to your rights, obligations, care, or services at the Community” (Isfeld Decl., Ex. A, Arbitration Agreement, ¶ A.) The agreement additionally specifies that it applies to claims against defendant, plaintiff, or any other individual or entity and includes personal injury or wrongful death claims. (Ibid.) The agreement is signed by plaintiff Lurlynne Arkelian.
Plaintiffs argue their premises liability and negligence claims do not arise out of her care received at the facility or services provided and are thus outside the scope of the claims plaintiff agreed to arbitrate. This argument disregards the language of the agreement encompassing personal injury claims. The court finds defendant has met it burden to demonstrate the existence of an agreement to arbitrate the claims brought by Lurlynne Arkelian against both defendant and Barken Development & Construction, LLC. Defendant has not met its burden in demonstrating the existence of an agreement for Jeffrey Arkelian to arbitrate his claims as he is not a party to the agreement and has not agreed to arbitrate his claims against defendant or other individuals or entities relating to his mother’s residence with defendant.
As such, the burden shifts with respect to Lurlynne Arkelian to demonstrate a defense to enforceability.
Plaintiff submits that the agreement is unenforceable because it is unconscionable. If the court finds as a matter of law that a contract or any portion of it was unconscionable at the time it was made, the court may refuse to enforce it, or may enforce the contract without the unconscionable provisions, or limit their application to avoid any unconscionable result. (Civ. Code § 1670.5, subd. (a).) There are two prongs considered in this analysis: procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability.
Both must be present for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement under the doctrine of unconscionability. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services., Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 113.) They need not be present in equal amounts; essentially a sliding scale is used, and where there is substantive unconscionability, less procedural unconscionable need be shown. (Id. at pp. 113-114.)
Plaintiff asserts that the Arbitration Agreement is procedurally unconscionable due to the Care and Residency package consisting of 342 pages of standardized, providerdrafted form, presented in a “adhesion setting” with information and bargaining disparities. Plaintiff’s opposition is limited to argument and is unsupported by evidence in the form of a declaration. Moreover, the language of the agreement allows the resident to withdraw their agreement to arbitrate and there is no indication on the face of the agreement that the resident was required to sign in the first instance. In the absence of evidence to meet plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate the agreement is unconscionable, plaintiff has not met her burden.
In the absence of a finding of unconscionability, the court finds that there is an enforceable written agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is granted as to plaintiff Lurlynne Arkelian. The court orders the derivative claims of Jeffrey Arkelian remaining in this action stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: SMC on July 6, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
12