Zimmerman vs. Pancho’s Restaurant, 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.)