Zollner Electronics, Inc. v. Skybell Technologies, Inc.

Trust vs. Huajin Zhou 2026-01550302 respondent Huajin Zhou (Respondent) to arbitrate Petitioners’ claims pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement. As set forth below, the petition is GRANTED.

The court is required to order arbitration if it determines an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists and a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, unless a valid defense to enforcement exists. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subds. (a)-(c).) The moving party 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. (Little v. Pullman (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 558, 565.)

Here, Petitioners produced evidence Respondent agreed to binding arbitration in the parties’ Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (RPA) as to “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction . . . .” (Petition, Ex. 1 ¶ 28(A).) This dispute arises out of the RPA. Petitioners demanded arbitration, but Respondent refused. (Verified Petition ¶¶ 7-9.)

Since the initial hearing on the petition, Respondent has filed a statement of non-opposition in which he acknowledges the parties’ arbitration agreement and agrees the court should enter an order compelling the parties to arbitrate their claims. The court therefore GRANTS the petition and Respondent is hereby ordered to submit to arbitration regarding Petitioners’ claims consistent with the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Given these proceedings were commenced simply as a petition seeking to compel arbitration, the proceedings are now complete given Respondent has been ordered to arbitrate the dispute. A new petition will be required for any future relief, such as a petition to confirm, vacate, or correct any future arbitration award. Petitioners’ counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling

5. Zollner Electronics, Inc. v. Skybell Technologies, Inc. 2023-01360405 CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 22, 2026, as stated in the August 3, 2026 Minute Order.