Harper v. JAMS CA2/4

Filed 8/23/24 Harper v. JAMS CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

RYAN HARPER, B326854

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV09029) v.

JAMS, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Upinder S. Kalra, Judge. Affirmed. Ryan Harper, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Long & Levit and Jessica R. MacGregor for Defendants and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ryan Harper (Harper), in pro. per., appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend brought by defendants JAMS, Inc. and arbitrator, Stephen E. Haberfeld (collectively, defendants). The court found that Harper’s claims against defendants were barred by the doctrine of arbitral immunity. We affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Harper’s operative pleading is the first amended complaint. We set forth the facts in accordance with the standard governing demurrers: we assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts and accept as true all facts that may be implied or inferred from the facts alleged. (La Serena Properties, LLC v. Weisbach (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 893, 897 (La Serena Properties, LLC).) Also, we consider matters that are properly the subject of judicial notice and were considered by the trial court. (Ibid.) In May 2015, the trial court compelled Harper to arbitrate a dispute arising out of his investment in a limited liability company (LLC). The court’s order was based on an arbitration provision contained in the operating agreement signed by the parties. In September 2015, Haberfeld, a retired judicial officer, was appointed as the arbitrator in the matter. Harper later amended his complaint in the trial court naming additional defendants, both of whom were then included in the pending arbitration. At one point, the matter was stayed for approximately a year pending Harper’s payment of his arbitration fees. After Harper paid the fees, the stay was lifted. On November 7, 2018, Haberfeld issued a merits order, finding that Harper’s claims were time-