Susan Virginia Hines v. KND Development 53, L.L.C.

evidence that defendant and its drivers can reliably determine ownership before interchange. Defendant asserts that if the Court finds "some interim protection warranted," defendant suggests a narrower order.

The Court rules as follows: The Court finds that a preliminary injunction should not issue because there is an adequate legal remedy; plaintiff does not argue otherwise. Plaintiff is seeking money damages that are calculable. Plaintiff does not allege that defendant is harming or not returning chassis. The motion is DENIED.

ORDER

The motion is DENIED. Plaintiff is to give notice of ruling.

Defendants KND Development 53, L.L.C. dba Kindred Hospital South Bay, Kindred Healthcare Operating, LLC, and Michael Kerr Responding Party: None Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action The Court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

The motion is GRANTED and the action is STAYED.

BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2026, Susan Virginia Hines, by and through her successor in interest, Atiya Thompson, and Atiya Thompson filed a complaint against defendants Knd Development 53, L.L.C. dba Kindred Hospital South Bay, Kindred Healthcare Operating, LLC, and Michael Kerr for elder abuse and wrongful death.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Under CCP Sec. 1281, a "written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and revocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract."

Under CCP Sec. 1281.2, "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: . . . (c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action . . . with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. . . . (d) . . . . If the court determines that a party to the arbitration is also a party to litigation in a pending court action . . . with a third party as set forth under subdivision (c) herein, the court (1) may refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement . . .; (2) may order intervention or joinder as to all or only certain issues; (3) may order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action . . . pending the outcome of arbitration proceeding; or (4) may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the court action or special proceeding."

DISCUSSION

Defendants request an order compelling arbitration and staying this action.

Existence of an agreement to arbitrate

Under CCP Sec.1281.2, the party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. "With respect to the moving party's burden to provide evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the court." See Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 215, 218; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1330.

Once such a document is presented to the court, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to compel, who may present any challenges to the enforcement of the agreement and evidence in support of those challenges." Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal. App. 5th 1152, 1160 (citation omitted).

"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 . . . . However, the burden of production may shift in a three-step process. First, the moving party bears the burden of producing 'prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.' The moving party 'can meet its initial burden by attaching to the [motion or] petition a copy of the arbitration agreement purporting to bear the [opposing party's] signature.' . . .

For this step, 'it is not necessary to follow the normal procedures of document authentication.' If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party does not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, then nothing more is required for the moving party to meet its burden of persuasion. If the moving party meets its initial prima facie burden and the opposing party disputes the agreement, then in the second step, the opposing party bears the burden of producing evidence to challenge the authenticity of the agreement.

The opposing party can do this in several ways. For example, the opposing party may testify under oath or declare under penalty of perjury that the party never saw or does not remember seeing the agreement, or that the party never signed or does not remember signing the agreement. . . . If the opposing party meets its burden of producing evidence, then in the third step, the moving party must establish with admissible evidence a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The burden of proving the agreement by a preponderance of the evidence remains with the moving party."

Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5 th 158, 165 (citations omitted).

Defendants present evidence that Atiya Thompson, as legal representative, signed a Voluntary Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement on November 14, 2025. It states in part: "It is understood that any dispute as to medical malpractice, that is as to whether any medical services rendered under this contract were unnecessary or unauthorized, or were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered, will be determined by submission to arbitration as provided by California law, and not by a lawsuit or resort to court process . . . ." Allison Friedman decl., Exh. A.

The Court finds that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.

Scope

The agreement states that, "[i]n addition to covering the kinds of claims referred to in Articles I and II, this ADR agreement applies to any legal claim or civil action arising out of or relating to your hospitalization, outpatient service, or any service rendered under Kindred's Admission Agreement, which is incorporated by reference (e.g. claims for . . . elder abuse, . . .). This includes claims or actions against the hospital, its employees, agents, directors, or any parent subsidiary, or affiliate of the hospital and/or the Hospital's Medical Director(s) in his capacity as Medical Director. This ADR agreement also covers any claim or action brought by a party other than you (e.g. an action by your spouse, legal representative, agent, heir) arising out of or relating to your hospitalization or outpatient service against the hospital or its employees."

The Court finds that the scope of the agreement covers plaintiffs' claims for elder abuse and wrongful death. The motion is GRANTED.

ORDER

The motion is GRANTED and the action is STAYED. Defendants are to give notice of ruling.

Case Number: YC063581 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: B Moving Parties: Defendant Darla Kappelos Responding Party: None Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment The Court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On November 9, 2010, plaintiff FIA Card Services, N.A. filed a complaint against Darla Kappelos.