Simpson v. Paradigm Sports Management, LLC

6 People of the Off calendar. State of California v. Benji

7 Simpson v. Defendants Paradigm Sports Management, LLC, and Paradigm MMA Paradigm Sports Management, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants” or “Paradigm Management, LLC Defendants”) move to compel Plaintiffs Timothy Simpson, Daniel Maudsley, and Chosen Advisory Gorup, LLC, to resume ongoing arbitration proceedings and to stay this action pending outcome of the parties’ arbitration. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Standard on Motions to Compel Arbitration

The right to arbitration depends upon contract; a petition to compel arbitration is simply a suit in equity seeking specific performance of that contract. (Little v. Pullman (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 558, 565.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. (Ibid.) In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination. (Ibid.)

Pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 1281.2, the court must grant the petition unless it finds that one of the exceptions applies: (1) that no written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) that the right to compel arbitration has been waived; (3) that grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or (4) that litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 218-219.)

The moving party bears the burden of alleging and proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence. (Little v. Pullman, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 565.) Rules of Court Rule 3.1330 states: A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim or a copy must be physically or electronically attached to the petition and incorporated by reference. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.1330; see also Condee v. Longwood Management Corp., supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 218 [party seeking arbitration is required to allege existence of agreement to arbitrate].)

Application

Defendants do not prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement covering the claims pled in this case.

First, the Paradigm Defendants submit no competent evidence of the parties’ arbitration agreement. The moving papers also do not state verbatim the relevant arbitration provisions or attach a copy to the petition, as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1330. Although it is undisputed the parties were previously engaged in an arbitration proceeding, without competent evidence of a valid arbitration contract covering the scope of the parties’ dispute, the court cannot determine whether the parties were engaged in a contractual or voluntary arbitration.

The court does not consider Defendants’ evidence submitted for the first time on Reply. New evidence is not permitted on reply, as the opposing party does not have an opportunity to respond. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1538; see also San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 312.)

Even if the court considered the new evidence on Reply, Defendants seek arbitration of claims other than the claims asserted in this action. A motion to compel arbitration in this case is not the proper vehicle to do so. In fact, ruling on the merits of Defendants’ requested relief would require the court determine on the merits of Plaintiffs’ substantive claims (i.e., whether Plaintiffs properly withdrew from the JAMS arbitration and whether Defendants are liable for Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees).

For these reasons, the court must DENY Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

Case Management Conference

The Case Management Conference is continued to July 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in this department.

Plaintiff to give notice.

8 ShaunRae Toni Marie Frazee moves to allow this action to commence with Frazee Partners v. as the successor in interest for Plaintiff Gerald C. Lentz. For the Gledhill/Lyons, following reasons, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Inc. “On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.)

“Decedent’s successor-in-interest” means “the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.11.)

“The person who seeks to commence an action or proceeding or to continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent’s successor in interest” must execute and file an affidavit or declaration that contains

27