Sehgal v. Gokal Law Group, Inc.

The court orders this settled settled case dismissed, dismissed, without prejudice prejudice with the court retaining jurisdiction with § 664.4. jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 664.4.

shall give notice of this ruling. Plaintiff shall ruling.

52.

52. Sehgal v. Sehgal v. Group, Inc. Defendants Gokal Law Group, Inc. Abbas K. K. Gokal Gokal and and Alison Alison Gokal Law Gokal Law S. S. Gokal’s Gokal’s Motion Motion to Compel Compel Arbitration Arbitration is GRANTED. GRANTED. (Code Group, Inc. Group, Inc. Civ. Proc. Civ. Proc. §1281.2.) §1281.2.) Plaintiffs Arunpal Arunpal Sehgal, Sehgal, MD, MD, Gurkipal Singh Segal, Singh Segal, MD, MD, and Paramjot Mann, Mann, MD MD shall shall submit their 2026- 2026- binding arbitration before JAMS in claims to binding in accordance with with 01546794 01546794 arbitrate. the agreement to arbitrate.

Defendants have Defendants have met met their their burden burden to to demonstrate demonstrate the the existence of a existence a valid valid agreement to arbitrate that covers Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs’ claims. claims. Specifically, Specifically, Defendants Defendants point to an an contained in the agreements for legal agreement to arbitrate contained between Gokal services entered into between Gokal Law Group, Group, Inc. Inc. and Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs. arbitration agreement The arbitration agreement provides: provides:

11. ARBITRATION 11. ARBITRATION OFOF DISPUTES. DISPUTES. THE FIRM THE FIRM APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS TO SERVE AS THE CLIENT’S CLIENT’S ATTORNEY AND ANTICIPATE ANTICIPATE A PRODUCTIVE, HARMONIOUS PRODUCTIVE, HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIP. RELATIONSHIP.

IF ANY IF DISPUTE ARISES ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN CLIENT ARISES BETWEEN CLIENT AND/OR THE FIRM AND/OR THE FIRM REGARDING REGARDING SERVICES SERVICES OR BILLINGS OR BILLINGS OR OR ANY OTHER MATTER ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO RELATING THE PROVISIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OR OR DUTIES DUTIES UNDER THIS UNDER AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BUT BUT NOT LIMITED NOT LIMITED TO, CLAIMS OF TO, CLAIMS OF NEGLIGENCE NEGLIGENCE OR MALPRACTICE OR MALPRACTICE ARISING ARISING OUT OUT OF OF OR OR RELATING TO RELATING THE LEGAL TO THE LEGAL SERVICES SERVICES PROVIDED BY PROVIDED BY THE THE FIRM FIRM TO TO THE THE CLIENT, CLIENT, SUCH DISPUTE SUCH DISPUTE SHALL SHALL BE BE SUBMITTED SUBMITTED TOTO BINDING ARBITRATION, BINDING CONDUCTED IN ARBITRATION, CONDUCTED IN ORANGE COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE BEFORE A A RETIRED JUDGE RETIRED JUDGE ININ ACCORDANCE WITH ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THE RULES OF JAMS, JAMS, THE THE AMERICAN AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, OR ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, OR ANY ANY OTHER ARBITRATION OTHER ARBITRATION FORUM FORUM AGREED AGREED TOTO BY THE BY THE CLIENT, CLIENT, AND AND THE THE FIRM. FIRM.

ANY FEE DISPUTES ANY FEE DISPUTES SHALL SHALL BE BE ARBITRATED ARBITRATED ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE ADOPTED BY STATE BAR THE STATE BAR OF OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA OR LOCAL OR LOCAL BAR BAR ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATION, IF IF ANY, ANY, THEN THEN IN IN EFFECT. EFFECT.

ANY OTHER DISPUTE ANY OTHER DISPUTE SHALL SHALL BE BE ARBITRATED ARBITRATED ACCORDING ACCORDING TOTO THE THE ARBITRATION RULES OF ARBITRATION RULES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY THE ORANGE COUNTY BAR BAR ASSOCIATION, IF ASSOCIATION, IF ANY, THEN IN ANY, THEN IN EFFECT; EFFECT; AND AND IF IF THERE THERE ARE NO ARE NO

SUCH RULES SUCH RULES IN IN EFFECT, EFFECT, THEN IN ACCORDANCE THEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WITH RULES OF THE RULES OF THE THE AMERICAN AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION. ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION.

THE DECISION OF THE DECISION OF THE THE ARBITRATOR(S) SHALL ARBITRATOR(S) SHALL BE FINAL BE FINAL AND BINDING. THE AND BINDING. THE ARBITRATOR(S) ARBITRATOR(S) SHALL HAVE SHALL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO THE DISCRETION ORDER THE TO ORDER THE LOSING PARTY LOSING PARTY TO REIMBURSE THE TO REIMBURSE THE PREVAILING PARTY PREVAILING PARTY FOR FOR ALL COSTS AND ALL COSTS FEES AND FEES INCURRED IN INCURRED IN CONNECTION CONNECTION WITH WITH THE THE ARBITRATION, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' ARBITRATION, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES FEES AND AND THE THE ARBITRATORS' FEES. ARBITRATORS' FEES.

IF THE IF CLIENT OR THE CLIENT OR THE FIRM SHOULD THE FIRM SHOULD REFUSE REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION, SUCH PARTY MAY TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION, SUCH PARTY MAY BE COMPELLED BE COMPELLED TO TO ARBITRATE UNDER ARBITRATE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW. CALIFORNIA LAW. THE CLIENT AND THE CLIENT AND THE FIRM THE FIRM ACKNOWLEDGE ACKNOWLEDGE THE FOREGOING AND THE FOREGOING AND THAT THAT THIS MUTUAL AGREEMENT THIS MUTUAL AGREEMENT FORFOR BINDING BINDING ARBITRATION ARBITRATION ISIS VOLUNTARY. VOLUNTARY.

21 (Larson (See ROA 21 (Larson Decl.) Decl.) at Exhibits A, B, and C [emphasis [emphasis added].) added].)

Plaintiffs argue Plaintiffs argue that the clause that the clause inin the the agreement agreement thatthat covered covered claims are to be submitted submitted to arbitration arbitration ““in in accordance accordance withwith the the rules of JAMS, the American Arbitration the American Arbitration Association, or any other any other arbitration arbitration forum forum agreed agreed to to by by the client, and the client, and the the firm” firm” entitles Plaintiffs Plaintiffs to refuse to to refuse to submit submit their their claims claims toto arbitration arbitration with with JAMS.

JAMS. Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs’ misinterpret misinterpret the plain plain language of the clause which only requires additionaladditional agreement of the arbitrated in a the parties if claims are to be arbitrated a forum other forum other than than JAMS JAMS oror the American Arbitration the American Arbitration Association. Association.

Plaintiffs also argue that Abbas Gokal and and Alison Gokal do not have standing to enforce the the arbitration agreement because they are nonsignatories they are nonsignatories to to the the arbitration arbitration agreement. agreement. However, a However, a nonsignatory nonsignatory maymay enforce enforce an an agreement agreement to to arbitrate where the nonsignatory has sufficient identity with with a a party to the agreement, such the arbitration agreement, such as an an agency relationship or relationship or an an employment employment relationship. relationship. (See (See Jenks v.

DLA Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Piper Rudnick Gray Gray Cary Cary USUS LLP LLP (2015) (2015) 243 243 Cal.App.4th Cal.App.4th 1,1, 8- 8- 9.) Here, 9.) Here, there among parties to find that there is sufficient identity among Abbas Gokal Gokal and and Alison Gokal may enforce the Alison Gokal the arbitration non-signatories. agreement as non-signatories.

Since Plaintiffs Since Plaintiffs do do not not raise raise any any argument argument as as to to the the existence existence of the of agreement to the agreement to arbitrate arbitrate or or identify identify any any defenses defenses to its to its enforcement, and enforcement, and the claims alleged the claims alleged in in the Complaint are arbitration agreement, within the scope of the arbitration agreement, Plaintiffs must

submit their submit their claims claims to to arbitration arbitration in in accordance accordance with with the the terms terms of the arbitration agreement. the arbitration agreement.

The is VACATED. The case management conference is VACATED.

This pending completion This matter is STAYED pending completion of the arbitration until further order of the court. proceedings or until court. (Code Civ. Civ. Proc. §1281.4.) Proc. §1281.4.) A status conference re: re: Status of ADR proceedings is set for January 22, 2027 at 9:00 a.m.a.m. in this department. Five days before department. before the status conference, conference, the the parties are ordered to submit a a joint statement describing describing the status of status of the the arbitration. arbitration.

provide notice of this ruling. Defendants shall provide ruling.

v. | Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Virginia 53. | Fernandez v.

53. Virginia Fernandez’s Fernandez’s Demurrer to the FCI Lender First Amended Amended Cross-Complaint is STRICKENSTRICKEN as untimely. untimely. Services, Services,, . Inc. The First Amended The First Cross-Complaint was Amended Cross-Complaint was filed filed and and served served on on Inc. 10/20/25. (ROA 417.) Cross-Defendant did not file this 10/20/25. 2024- until 3/12/26. demurrer until 3/12/26. Therefore, Therefore, it is untimely as it was not 01374564 within 30 days of the filed within pleading. (Code Civ. the challenged pleading. Civ. Proc., § Proc., § 430.40(a).) 430.40(a).)

The case management The case management conference conference is is continued continued to to October October 12, 12, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28. 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.

an answer within 10 Cross-defendant shall file an 10 days. days.

Defoort shall Defoort shall give give notice notice of of this this ruling. ruling.

54. | Jianan 54. Jianan Cross-defendant Jianan Jianan International International USA Holdings, Holdings, Inc.’s Inc.’s International International demurrer to USS Cal Cal Builders, Inc.’s Inc.’s Cross-complaint is is USA USA OVERRULED. (Code OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Civ. Proc., Proc., §§ 430.10, 430.10, subd. subd. (e).) (e).) Holdings, Holdings, an Answer to the Cross-complaint Moving party shall file an Inc. v. Inc. v. USS USS Cal Builders, 10 days. within 10 days. Inc. Inc. 11st cause of st cause of action: action: breach breach of of contract. contract. 2025- 2025- This cause of This cause of action action states states sufficient sufficient facts. facts. (Oasis (Oasis West West 01506043 01506043 Realty, LLC Realty, LLC v. v.

Goldman Goldman (2011) (2011) 51 51 Cal.4th Cal.4th 811, 811, 821 821 [elements]; Cross-complaint, [elements]; Cross-complaint, ¶¶ 9] 14, 14, 17-19, 17-19, Ex. Ex. 11 [existence Subscription Agreement and terms], of Subscription terms], 1616 [performance], [performance], 21, 21, 24 [breach], 24 [breach], 26 26 [proximately [proximately caused caused damages].) damages].)

While moving party contends that the term term “assist” “assist” in §§ §§ 10.2, 10.2, 10.4, and 11.2 10.4, 11.2 of the Subscription Agreement is too vague to the Subscription determined on demurrer, be enforceable, this cannot be determined demurrer, particularly as the ““assistance” assistance” is tied tied to specific criteria criteria and and benchmarks. (See benchmarks. (See Tiffany Tiffany Builders, Builders, LLC LLC v. v. Delrahim Delrahim (2023) (2023) Cal.App.5th 536, 544–545 97 Cal.App.5th 544-545 [interpretation [interpretation of indefinite indefinite contract terms].) terms].) Further, the alleged breaches are not the alleged limited to ““assistance.” assistance.” (Cross-complaint, (Cross-complaint, ¶ 19,19, [alleging [alleging