Simmons v. Avant Garde Senior Living CA2/5
Filed 10/17/13 Simmons v. Avant Garde Senior Living CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
TOBI SIMMONS et al., B246967
Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC493106) v.
AVANT GARDE SENIOR LIVING,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Fahey, Judge. Reversed with directions. Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe & Nichols, David J. O’Keefe, William R. Johnson and Vangi M. Johnson for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Maryann P. Gallagher and Maryann P. Gallagher for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Defendant, Avant Garde Senior Living, appeals from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration. There were two grounds upon which the trial court relied in denying the petition to compel arbitration. The first was the danger of conflicting rulings with the results of proceedings pending against codefendants in the judicial forum. The second ground was the trial court’s express statement that arbitration is not an efficient means of dispute resolution. We conclude these grounds were not a proper basis for denying the petition to compel arbitration. Thus, we reverse the order denying the petition to compel arbitration. There were other grounds for denying the petition that the trial court never ruled upon. Upon remittitur issuance, the parties remain free to litigate those questions. The following are the pertinent provisions of the arbitration agreement: “10. Arbitration. By entering into this Agreement, you agree that any and all claims and disputes arising from or related to this Agreement or to your residency, care or services at the Community shall be resolved by submission to neutral, binding arbitration, except that any claim or dispute involving evictions or which is brought in small claims court shall not be subject to arbitration unless both parties agree to arbitrate such proceedings. Both parties give up their constitutional right to have any such dispute decided in a court of law before a jury, and instead accept the use of arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted in Orange County, California, by a single neutral arbitrator selected in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise mutually agreed. In reaching a decision, the arbitrator shall prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees in connection with the arbitration. The arbitrator shall not have jurisdiction to consider evidence regarding or award punitive damages. This arbitration clause binds all parties to this Agreement and their spouse, heirs, representatives, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, as applicable. After termination of this Agreement, this arbitration clause shall remain in full effect for the resolution of all claims and disputes that are unresolved as of that date. [¶] 11. Actions Not Subject to Arbitration. Any action arising out of or related to this Agreement that is brought by or against the Community for which arbitration is not
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)