Little v. Consumer Defense Law CA1/4

Filed 3/4/26 Little v. Consumer Defense Law CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

KENNETH LITTLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A173486 v. CONSUMER DEFENSE LAW (San Francisco County GROUP, P.C., et al., Super. Ct. No. CGC24619942) Defendants and Appellants.

Following the foreclosure of his home, Kenneth Little filed an action against defendants Consumer Defense Law Group, P.C., Anthony Paul Cara, and Fernando Leone alleging causes of action for, among other things, fraud, breach of contract, and professional negligence.1 In this appeal, defendants contend the trial court erred in denying their petition to compel arbitration of the dispute. Although plaintiff has not filed a brief in this appeal, “the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the Appellants to demonstrate reversible error . . . even if there is no respondents’ brief.” (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657, 708.) Defendants fail to address the trial court’s ruling and instead assert a new

1 Plaintiff’s complaint names two additional defendants, Ticor Title

Company of California and MTC Financial Inc., that are not parties to the appeal. 1

argument in support of their petition. We decline to consider the new argument asserted for the first time on appeal and accordingly affirm the order denying their petition to compel arbitration. BACKGROUND As relevant here, the complaint alleges that plaintiff was contacted by defendants and induced to sign a retainer agreement by promises that defendants could save his home from foreclosure. The contract, attached as an exhibit to the complaint, includes an initial retainer of $21,000 to cover investigation costs and limited representation of plaintiff in a civil suit against the lender through the case management conference on any such suit. The agreement also includes a contingent fee provision for monetary recovery that—plaintiff alleges unbeknownst to him—provided defendants with a 40 percent interest in the equity of the home recoverable from any excess funds should foreclosure occur. His complaint alleges further that defendants “were at all times pertinent hereto, and are, the agents, servants, employees, joint venturers and partners of each of the other codefendants and were acting within the scope of their authority as such agents, servants, employees, joint venturers and partners, with the permission and consent of said co-defendants” and that defendants breached the contract “by failing to properly charge fees, failing to perform promised services, by charging excessive fees, and materially defaulting on the contracts.” Defendants moved to compel arbitration. Their petition asserts that the fee agreement entered into by the parties included an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The contract attached to the petition is the same fee agreement attached to the complaint. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that he did not execute an arbitration agreement with defendants and that “no arbitration agreement