JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS. ADAM CHREKI

Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Wednesday July 15, 2026, line 11, DEFENDANT ADAM CHREKI'S Motion To Compel Arbitration And Stay Proceedings

Defendant's unopposed motion to (1) compel arbitration and (2) stay the litigation pending completion of arbitration is granted.

Plaintiff JP Chase Morgan Bank, N.A. ("Chase") filed a complaint for breach of contract arising out of an unpaid credit card bill. Plaintiff attached a copy of the parties' "Cardholder Agreement" to the complaint.

On April 30, 2026, Defendant served Plaintiff with a motion to compel arbitration based on pages 19-21 of the Cardholder Agreement. In support of the motion, Defendant submitted a declaration to which he attached a copy of the Cardholder Agreement. (Declaration of Adam Chreki, paragraphs 3)

The pertinent portion of the Cardholder Agreement states: "This arbitration agreement provides that all disputes between you and Chase must be resolved by BINDING ARBITRATION whenever you or we choose to submit or refer a dispute to arbitration." Defendant stated under oath that he considered the arbitration clause to be "valid, binding and enforceable," and that he elected to resolve "all claims and disputes in this action" through binding arbitration. (Declaration of Adam Chreki, paragraph 6)

"The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense." (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 951, 972) In order to meet his burden of producing prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, "it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication." (Gamboa v. Northeast Comm. Clinic (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158, 165.)

Here, Defendant met his burden of establishing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion and thus waived any objection to the relief requested.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (302/CM) | |