Vandever v. Solheim Senior Community

(Spring Street Courthouse: Dept. 25) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT 25 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS *** The Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is JUDGE JONATHAN H. EISENMAN *** Tentative Rulings are posted before the hearing.

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is [email protected] . The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. The party submitting to the tentative must include to the e-mail any other party to the action.

Please note that if a party fails to appear at a law and motion hearing without having given notice under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1204, subd. (c), the court may take the matter off calendar, to be reset only upon motion, or may rule on the matter. If only one party has submitted, the Court may still hear the motion at the hearing or adopt the tentative ruling. Please note, the above e-mail address is ONLY to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

All parties may appear remotely for law and motion hearings. A party may register to attend remotely by accessing the court's website at www.lacourt.ca.gov and by registering through LACourtConnect. This service is accessed via the "Online Services" tab at the top of the webpage, and by selecting "Remote Hearings" below the "Courtroom Services," then by selecting "Civil."

2026 JUDGE /DEPT: Eisenman/25 CASE NAME: Vandever v. Solheim Senior Community COMP. FILED: 03-13-26 CASE NUMBER: 26STLC01709 NOTICE: OK PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO COMPEL CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AND STAY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MOVING PARTY: Defendant Solheim Senior Community RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Jennifer Vandever PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.2, et seq.; 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: The Court GRANTS Solheim Senior Community's motion to compel arbitration. The Court STAYS proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration. Solheim is to give notice. SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP Sec.Sec. 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP Sec.Sec. 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: Filed on August 18, 2026 [] Late [] None REPLY: Filed on August 24, 2026 [] Late [] None ANALYSIS: Jennifer Vandever sued Solheim Senior Community for breach of contract and fraud stemming from Solheim's alleged lack of adequate care for Vandever's mother, Ruth Vandever. Solheim moves to compel arbitration and stay these proceedings. (To distinguish Jennifer and Ruth, the Court refers to them by their first names.)

Arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, "the court must first determine whether the parties actually agreed to arbitrate the dispute," and "[g]eneral principles of California contract law help guide the court in making this determination." (Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534, 541.) The party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a written arbitration agreement between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.2.)

Jennifer signed a Residence and Service Agreement which contains an arbitration clause. If the agreement applies, there is no dispute that this action is within its scope. In any event, the agreement delegates to the arbitrator the question whether a dispute is within the agreement's reach. (Consumer Advocacy Group v. Walmart Inc. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 679, 690.)

Jennifer concedes that she signed the agreement, but argues that under Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC (2024) 15 Cal.5th 939, Solheim needs to provide a written power of attorney showing that she had the authority to sign on Ruth's behalf. Whether Harrod applies to a facility like Solheim or not, Ruth isn't a party to this lawsuit and Solheim isn't seeking to compel Ruth to arbitrate. So whether Jennifer could bind Ruth to arbitrate is not now an issue. The only issue is whether Jennifer bound herself to arbitrate, and the arbitration agreement that she signed is clear on that point: "If someone other than Resident signs this arbitration clause on behalf of Resident, then he/she understands and agrees that he/she is agreeing to arbitration on behalf of Resident as well as on behalf of him/herself as an individual." (Emphasis added.)

Jennifer also argues that Solheim waived its right to compel her to arbitrate her claims by its own litigation conduct. Since being served, Solheim has taken no affirmative action to proceed in court: It filed a challenge to the initially assigned judge, filed a document seeking an automatic extension of its time to respond to the complaint, and then filed this petition.

It could hardly have done less in this forum; its conduct does not evince an intent to relinquish a right to arbitrate in favor of judicial proceedings. The Court therefore GRANTS Solheim's petition to compel arbitration. The Court STAYS proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.4; accord 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3.) The Court sets a conference on the status of the arbitration for Monday, March 1, 2027 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse. Solheim is to give notice. | Home -->)" -->