CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving defendant’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 4/29/2025, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving defendant is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Defendant’s moving papers again do not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving defendant is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling

23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 10/02/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53

procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving defendant is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving defendant is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

Defendant in pro per Rascon’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Citibank, N.A.’s (“Bank”) claims against her and to stay these judicial proceedings pending completion of arbitration is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

Plaintiff Bank filed this action on 9/12/2023, asserting against defendant Rascon a cause of action for various common counts based on a credit card account. A default judgment was entered against defendant Rascon on 9/18/2024 but she obtained relief from the default and default judgment on 8/20/2025, thereafter filing the present motion to compel arbitration on 8/26/2025.

Moving Papers. Defendant Rascon now moves to compel plaintiff Bank to arbitrate the claims alleged against her in this action pursuant to the arbitration provision found in agreement for the subject credit card account, citing provisions of both the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”).

Opposition. The Court finds no opposition or other objection by plaintiff Bank to this motion.

Relevant Legal Principles

Under California law, arbitration must be compelled where there is a valid, binding arbitration agreement unless the opposing party proves the agreement is unenforceable on unconscionability or other grounds. (See, e.g., Armendariz v. Foundation Health (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 96-100, 114; Gatton v. T-Mobile USA (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579.) In fact, Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2 specifically provides in pertinent part:

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 revocation of the agreement. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is essentially the same:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 10/02/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53

A written provision in any contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. (Underline added for emphasis.)

California has a public policy which encourages arbitrations and arbitration clauses have been repeatedly enforced. (See, e.g., Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9 [the California Supreme Court stated this state has a “strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution”]; Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 707 [California’s statutory scheme “evidence[s] a strong public policy in favor of arbitrations [as a] favored method of resolving disputes”]; Gross v. Recabaren (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 771, 775; Berman v. Dean Witter Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003; Greenfield v. Mosley (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 735, 744.)

“Under both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.” (Sparks v. Del Mar Child and Family Svcs. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517.) “In a petition to compel arbitration, the party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.] The party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense, including that an arbitration provision is invalid or otherwise not enforceable.” (Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Servs., Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 314, 325.)

“The burden of persuasion is always on the moving party to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement with the opposing party by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164.) “However, the burden of production may shift in a three-step process.” (Id., at 165.) The moving party meets the initial burden by attaching to the moving papers a copy of the alleged arbitration agreement or setting forth its terms verbatim. (Id.; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1330.) “For this step, ‘it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.’” (Id. (quoting Candee v.

Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218.) Once the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement. (Id.) If the opposing party meets its burden, the moving party must then offer admissible evidence to demonstrate the arbitration agreement is valid. (Id.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 10/02/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53

Discussion

At the outset, the Court finds that the sole “declaration” in support of this motion by defendant Rascon is not executed under penalty of perjury at all, much less in conformity with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §2015.5. As a result, this single declaration is not competent, admissible evidence which can be considered by the Court in connection with the present motion. More critically, this means the Court does not consider the inadmissible declaration including any other papers that may be attached to and made part of it.

Further, defendant does not otherwise set forth the terms of the alleged arbitration agreement verbatim in the moving papers (other than as an exhibit to the inadmissible attempted declaration). Therefore, defendant has not satisfied even the minimal initial burden of production under Gamboa. Because the Court finds the moving papers insufficient to satisfy defendant Rascon’s limited initial burden of production under Gamboa, the present motion to compel arbitration must be denied regardless of the lack of opposition.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, the present motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Bank’s claims now alleged against defendant Rascon must be and hereby is DENIED albeit without prejudice.

The Court adds that if the parties are both willing to proceed via arbitration, they may submit a stipulation and proposed order regarding the same, as opposed to proceeding by future noticed motion.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)