CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. 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

23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 12/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Pro per Defendant Lisseth A. Rascon’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel arbitration and stay this action is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant’s moving papers 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 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.

Factual Background

Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on September 12, 2023, asserting against Defendant a cause of action for various common counts based on a credit card account. A default judgment was entered against Defendant on September 18, 2024 but she obtained relief from the default and default judgment on August 20, 2025.

This is Defendant’s third motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff. The Court denied Defendant’s initial motion to compel arbitration without prejudice because Defendant failed to meet her initial burden. (See October 2, 2025, Minute Order at p. 3.) Defendant then made a second motion to compel, but this motion was dropped from calendar due to defective service. (See October 30, 2025, Minute Order at p. 1.) Defendant filed this present motion to compel on November 26, 2025.

Moving Papers. Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate the claims against her in this action pursuant to the arbitration provision found in the 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 in its record.

Legal Standard

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,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 12/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53

114; Gatton v. T-Mobile USA (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579.) In fact, Code of Civil Procedure section 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 to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that 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 rescission of the agreement.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2 subds. (a), (b) [emphasis added].)

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

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.

(9 U.S.C.A. § 2 [emphasis added].)

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, 706 [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, 743.)

“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. Vista Del Mar Child and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 12/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53

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 unenforceable.” (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.)

Finally, California law holds that an agreement to arbitrate may be rendered unenforceable on grounds of unconscionability but this requires a finding of both procedural and substantive unconscionability, although both need not be present in the same degree. (See, e.g., Kinney v. United Healthcare Services (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1329.) Instead, trial courts invoke a “sliding scale” standard where “the more substantively oppressive the contract term, the less evidence of procedural unconscionability is required to come to the conclusion that the term is unenforceable, and vice versa.” (Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 114.)

Procedural unconscionability generally relates to the “manner in which the contract was negotiated and the circumstances of the parties at that time,” with a particular focus on any surprise and/or oppression which might arise from unequal bargaining power between the parties and an absence of real negotiation or a meaningful choice on the part of the weaker party. (Morris v. Redwood Empire Bancorp (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1319.) According to the Third District Court of Appeal, a primary question concerning procedural unconscionability is whether the contract at issue is one of adhesion, meaning a “‘standardized contract which not only is drafted and imposed by the party of superior bargaining strength but also relegates to the subscribing party the opportunity only to adhere to the contract or reject it.” (Cabatit v.

Sunnova Energy Corp. (2020) 60 Cal.App.5th 317, 323, citing Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 113.) Substantive unconscionability relates to the presence of one or more contract terms which may be overly harsh or likely to create one-sided results. (See, e.g., Nunez v. Cycad Management LLC (2022) 77 Ca.App.5th 276, 283.)

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 12/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53

Existence of Enforceable Arbitration Agreement. The threshold question here is whether there is between the parties an enforceable agreement to arbitrate and to answer this question, the Court follows the above-cited burden-shifting framework established by the decision of Gamboa. Coupled with the lack of opposition, which is construed as a concession on the merits of this motion (see, e.g., D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn.4), the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied her initial burden of production.

The Agreement between the parties provides, in part, the following:

ARBITRATION

PLEASE READ THIS PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY.

This section provides that disputes may be resolved by binding arbitration. Arbitration replaces the right to go to court, have a jury trial or initiate or participate in a class action. In arbitration, disputes are resolved by an arbitrator, not a judge or jury. Arbitration procedures are simpler and more limited than in court. This arbitration provision is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and shall be interpreted in the broadest way the law will allow.

Covered claims

• You or we may arbitrate any claim, dispute or controversy between you and us arising out of or related to your Account, a previous related Account or our relationship (called “Claims”).

• If arbitration is chosen by any party, neither you nor we will have the right to litigate that Claim In court or have a jury trial on that Claim.

Except as stated below, all Claims are subject to arbitration, no matter what legal theory they're based on or what remedy (damages, or injunctive or declaratory relief) they seek, including Claims based on contract, tort (including intentional tort), fraud, agency, your or our negligence, statutory or regulatory provisions, or any other sources of law; Claims made as counterclaims, cross- claims, third-party claims, interpleaders or otherwise; Claims made

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 12/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53

regarding past, present or future conduct; and Claims made independently or with other claims. This also includes Claims made by or against anyone connected with us or you or claiming through us or you, or by someone making a claim through us or you, such as a co-applicant, Authorized User, employee, agent, representative or an affiliated/parent/subsidiary company.

How arbitration works

• Arbitration shall be conducted by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) according to this arbitration provision and the applicable AAA arbitration rules in effect when the claim is filed (“AAA Rules”), except where those rules conflict with this arbitration provision. You can obtain copies of the AAA Rules at the AAA’s website (www.adr.org) or by calling 800-778-7879. You or we may choose to have a hearing, appear at any hearing by phone or other electronic means, and/or be represented by counsel. Any in-person hearing will be held in the same city as the U.S. District Court closest to your billing address.

• Arbitration may be requested at any time, even where there is a pending lawsuit, unless a trial has begun or a final judgment entered. Neither you nor we waive the right to arbitrate by filing or serving a complaint, answer, counterclaim, motion or discovery in a court lawsuit. To choose arbitration, a party may file a motion to compel arbitration in a pending matter and/or commence arbitration by submitting the required AAA forms and requisite filing fees to the AAA.

• The arbitration shall be conducted by a single arbitrator in accord with this arbitration provision and the AAA Rules, which may limit discovery. The arbitrator shall not apply any federal or state rules of civil procedure for discovery, but the arbitrator shall honor claims of privilege recognized at law and shall take reasonable steps to protect Account information and other confidential information of either party if requested to do so. The arbitrator shall apply

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 12/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53

applicable substantive law consistent with the FAA and applicable statute of limitations, and may award damages or other relief under applicable law.

• The arbitrator shall make any award in writing and, if requested by you or us, may provide a brief statement of the reasons for the award. An arbitration award shall decide the rights and obligations only of the parties named in the arbitration, and shall not have any bearing on any other person or dispute.

(Declaration of Lisseth A. Rascon, Exhibit B.)

The Court concludes, based on the evidence provided, that Defendant has met her initial burden to show the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence any defense to the petition. (Sparks, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1518.)

Again, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.) Because Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, it cannot meet its burden.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

Disposition

Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The action is STAYED pending arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)