Remery vs. Extra Space Management, Inc.

2. Zimmerman vs. Pancho’s Restaurant, Inc.

24-01427702

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record

The motion of attorney Andrea R. Sitar of Pleiss, Sitar, McGrath, Gates & Ajello to withdraw as attorney of record for defendant Pancho’s Restaurant, Inc. is GRANTED effective upon filing of the proof of service upon the client. (Code Civ. Proc. § 284, CRC 3.1362.)

Moving attorney is to give notice.

THIS RULING IS FINAL.

3. Remery vs. Extra Space Management, Inc.

26-01559803

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Defendant Extra Space Management, Inc.’s unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1281 et seq.

The FAA “applies where there is ‘a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce.’” (Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265, 277 [quoting 9 USC § 2] [emphasis in original].)

A court’s role in considering a petition to compel arbitration under the FAA is limited to “determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. If the response is affirmative on both counts, then the Act requires the court to enforce the arbitration agreement in accordance with its terms.” (Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys. Inc. (9th Cir. 2000) 207 F.3d 1126, 1130.) “In determining the rights of parties to enforce an arbitration agreement within the FAA’s scope, courts apply state contract law while giving due regard to the federal policy favoring arbitration.” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v.

Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.) “The party seeking arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense, such as unconscionability.” (Ibid.)

Existence of Arbitration Agreements

Under Code of Civ. Proc. §1281.2, the first thing the Court must decide is whether there was an agreement to arbitrate, a meeting of the minds. (Mitri v. Arnel Management Co. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1169.) This analysis is no different under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) – there must be an agreement in writing to submit a controversy to arbitration. (9 U.S.C.A. § 2.)

“In determining the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, the trial court must employ a three-step burden shifting process. The party seeking to compel arbitration bears an initial burden to show an agreement to arbitrate; that burden can be met by providing a copy of the alleged agreement. If that initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the party opposing arbitration to identify a factual dispute as to the agreement’s existence, thereby shifting the burden back to the arbitration proponent. At that point, and “[b]ecause the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition, the petitioner bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Garcia v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 41, 51 [cleaned-up].)

Defendant attaches the 5/25/19 Rental Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant to lease storage unit C233R at the Extra Space Storage facility in Westminster. Paragraph 31 and Adendum to the Rental Agreement contains a mutual agreement to arbitrate.

The arbitration provision applies to “any claims or controversies...related in any way...to this Rental Agreement, the Occupant’s use or occupancy of the Space...or property damage.” Plaintiff asserts claims for improperly imposed charges, lien-related publication fees; noncompliance with lien sale publication requirements, unlawful and unfair business practices, and negligence. Each of these claims arises directly out of, or relates to, the Rental Agreement and Plaintiff’s use of the storage unit, and is thus covered by the arbitration provision.

The Court finds Defendant has sustained its burden of demonstrating the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.

Plaintiff has not opposed the motion or disputed the validity of the arbitration agreement.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, and the action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration.

The Court now vacates all future court dates, including the CMC scheduled for September 10, 2026. A Review Hearing re: Arbitration is scheduled for July 22, 2027, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12. Joint Status Report to be filed by July 1, 2027.

Moving party to give notice of this ruling.

4. Allstate Insurance Company vs. East Nine Condominium Association

25-01479772

Motion to Compel Production

CONTINUED 5. Padilla Hernandez vs. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company

26-01537689

Motion to Compel Production

CONTINUED 6. Gombu, LLC vs. Do Builder and Design, Inc.

23-01367281

1. Motion to Compel Arbitration 2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff Gombu, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is CONTINUED to November 13, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department C12.

Plaintiff’s proof of service does not state the electronic service address of the declarant, as required by Code Civ. Proc. §1013b, subd. (b)(1). In light of the fact that no opposition to this motion has been filed, the Court is concerned that Defendants were not given appropriate notice of the hearing of this motion.

Within 7 days of this ruling, Plaintiff shall re-serve the Motion to all Parties and file a valid proof of service of the same that complies with the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §1013b.

Defendants’ deadline to file an opposition to the motion shall be calculated based upon the continued hearing date.