SYNCHRONY BANK vs PIPER

24CV104071: SYNCHRONY BANK vs PIPER 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by SYNCHRONY BANK (Plaintiff) CRS# 341664669655 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Karin Schwartz

The Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by SYNCHRONY BANK on 05/28/2026 is Denied.

Cross-Defendant Synchrony Bank’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

Cross-Defendant Western Dental Services, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Synchrony Bank (“Synchrony”) initiated this action on December 20, 2024 for breach of contract against Venus Piper (“Piper”). Synchrony alleges that Piper breached the parties’ written credit card cardholder agreement in January 2024 by failing to pay the amount due. (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7.)

Piper filed a Cross-Complaint against Synchrony and Western Dental Services Inc. (“Western Dental”). The operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”)filed on April 29, 2025 alleges (1) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 654.3; (2) Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and (3) Violation of the Business & Professions Code § 17200 as unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent.

Piper contends that at an August 2022 appointment with WDS, she informed Western Dental of her dental insurance coverage, but Western Dental arranged financing through a CareCredit credit card account with Synchrony. (FACC ¶¶ 2, 62-69.) Piper contends that “[a] Western Dental employee completed this credit application while Ms. Piper was in the chair for a dental exam” and she herself did not review, consent to, and/or sign up for the credit card. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Piper alleges that she did not authorize the application for the card. (Id. ¶ 93.)

Piper states that she never applied for a CareCredit card or any other credit card while at the Western Dental office. (Piper Decl. ¶ 4.) She believes that a Western Dental employee filled out a CareCredit application, as Piper expressed concern regarding her insurance coverage for dentures. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Piper states that the Western Dental employee did not ask her (Piper) if she wanted to apply for the card, or explain the purpose of the card. (Id. ¶ 7.) Piper states that she never saw the application herself, nor did she execute any portion of the application. (Id. ¶¶ 9- 11.)

Piper states that she did not see, review, sign, or otherwise receive the arbitration agreement that was purportedly included with the CareCredit application. (Id. ¶¶ 20-24.) Piper states that she reviews all documents prior to signing; saves all documents received; and had she seen an arbitration agreement, she would have asked questions about the agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 24-26.) Piper attempted to resolve the issue regarding the CareCredit card thereafter, but was unsuccessful. (Id. ¶¶ 15-19.) 24CV104071: SYNCHRONY BANK vs PIPER 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by SYNCHRONY BANK (Plaintiff) CRS# 341664669655 in Department 20 Western Dental and Synchrony separately move to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the CareCredit card agreement.

LEGAL STANDARD

An agreement to submit disputes to arbitration “is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281; see 9 U.S.C. § 2.)\

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) grounds exist for the recission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.)

DISCUSSION

The threshold question in a motion to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate. (Fleming v. Oliphant Financial, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 13, 19.) A court cannot compel an individual to arbitrate a dispute if he or she did not agree to do so. (Id.) An arbitration agreement is subject to the same rules of construction and enforcement as any other contract. (Toal v. Tardif (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1221.)

The moving party bears the initial burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. (Esparza v. Sand & Sea, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 781, 787.) Facts necessary to determine an arbitration agreement’s enforcement are proven by affidavits or declarations. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218.) For purposes of a motion to compel arbitration, it is not necessary to follow normal procedures of document authentication, and the court is only required to find that the agreement exists, not make an evidentiary determination of its validity. (Id., at pp. 218-219.)

As a threshold matter, the moving party bears the initial burden of producing “prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy” by either (1) attaching to the motion a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the opposing party’s signature; or (2) “by setting forth the agreement’s provisions in the motion.” (Gamboa v. Ne. Cmty. Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 165-166.)

Western Dental submits the declaration of Sushma Gohil, Western Dental’s Vice President of Risk Management and Regulatory Affairs. She states that as part of her employment, she has personal knowledge as to the manner and method by which Western Dental prepares and maintains its business records for patient accounts. (Gohil Decl. ¶ 2.) Her declaration is based upon her personal knowledge and review of Western Dental’s business records relating to Piper.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV104071: SYNCHRONY BANK vs PIPER 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by SYNCHRONY BANK (Plaintiff) CRS# 341664669655 in Department 20 (Id. ¶ 3.) Gohil discusses Western Dental’s polices and procedures for its forms and disclosures in new patient packets. (Id. ¶ 4.) Gohil states that Western Dental’s records reflect that “a person identifying themselves as Venus Piper obtained dental services” and “Western’s records reflect that the dental office presented the Arbitration Agreement to Ms. Piper, which she signed along with several other documents.” (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. A.)

The Court SUSTAINS Piper’s Objections as to the Gohil Declaration, for lack of foundation and lack of personal knowledge. Gohil does not describe her job duties as a Vice President of Risk Management and Regulatory Affairs such that is unclear how she would be knowledgeable or familiar with Western Dental offices’ policies and procedures in providing clients with new patient packets, or the patients’ execution of the documents in that packet.

Pursuant to the foregoing, the Court finds that Western Dental fails to provide evidence to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement entered into by Piper. Even if Western Dental did so, Piper provides sufficient evidence to challenge the existence of an agreement. As discussed above, Piper states in her sworn declaration that she does not recall seeing, reviewing, signing, or retaining any agreement to arbitrate. (Gamboa v. Ne. Cmty. Clinic, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at pp. 165-166 [party opposing motion to compel arbitration may challenge authenticity of arbitration agreement with sworn statement of never seeing agreement or that the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement].)

CONCLUSION

Based upon the record before the Court, Western Dental and Synchrony’s motions to compel arbitration are DENIED.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV104071: SYNCHRONY BANK vs PIPER 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by SYNCHRONY BANK (Plaintiff) CRS# 341664669655 in Department 20 BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.