MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
The court denies the request to construe the motion for summary judgment of the entire complaint as a motion for judgment on the pleadings of a single cause of action on the ground the two causes of action are duplicative.
The court need not rule on Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ evidence.
Plaintiff to give notice.
104 Chan v. Blue Ray MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE – DENIED Aquatics, 2025- WITHOUT PREJUDICE 01524694 The unopposed application of attorney David A. DuBois to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Blueray Aquatics, LLC is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Moving Attorney met the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40 except that Moving Attorney did not: (1) state his residence pursuant to rule 9.40(d)(1), (2) establish proper service on the state Bar of California pursuant to rule 9.40(c)(1), and (3) state that he is not “[r]egularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California” pursuant to 9.40(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3).
The Court notes that Counsel need not provide his exact residence address but he must identify the state of his legal residence. This information is not provided in counsel’s declaration.
Moving attorney to give notice.
105 Dodds-Tsang v. Garden MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION – DENIED Grove Post Acute, 2025- Plaintiff Yvette Dodds-Tsang sued Defendant Garden 01536667 Grove Post Acute LLC (“Defendant”) for elder abuse, willful misconduct, and medical malpractice/wrongful death in connection with the death of Plainitff’s mother, Ha Tu. All of Plaintiff’s claims are asserted as survival
causes of action which Plainitff is bringing as a successor in interest to her deceased mother. Defendant moves to compel arbitration for all claims asserted against it and stay the case pending arbitration pursuant to “the binding Arbitration Agreement executed in connection with Ha Tu’s admission to the facility on or about April 8, 2025.”
Plaintiff Yvette Dodds-Tsang (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion.
Pursuant to the holding in Hearden v. Windsor Redding Care Center, LLC (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1010
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 causes of action asserted in the Complaint belong to Decedent Ha Tu. Plaintiff does not bring these causes of action in her individual capacity; rather, Plaintiff only brings these causes of action as successor in interest to decedent Ha Tu. As such, the Court is not persuaded the Plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate in her individual capacity holds any significance since the only causes of action at issue are those that belong to the decedent. The decedent never agreed to arbitrate claims that belong to her and therefore caselaw establishes that decedent’s representatives, agents, executors, family members, successors in interests and heir shall not be bound to arbitrate claims that belong to the decedent.
Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within 20 days after Plaintiff serves notice of this ruling.
The order to show cause is discharged.
The case management conference is continued to October 12, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Department N14.
Plaintiff to give notice.