Hoyle v. Top Surgeons CA2/2

Filed 4/10/14 Hoyle v. Top Surgeons CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ELISABETH HOYLE, B247375

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MC023872) v.

TOP SURGEONS, LLC (CONVERTED OUT FROM TOP SURGEONS, INC., D/B/A WEIGHT LOSS CENTERS),

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a petition to compel arbitration of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Brian C. Yep, Judge. Affirmed.

Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP, Jack R. Reinholtz and Douglas S. de Heras for Defendant and Appellant.

Brian E. Reed for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

The trial court denied a petition to compel arbitration filed by defendant and appellant Top Surgeons LLC (converted out from Top Surgeons, Inc., dba Weight Loss Centers) involving the complaint alleging negligence and fraud filed by plaintiff and respondent Elisabeth Hoyle. The trial court ruled that appellant was not a party to any arbitration agreement, nor had it established it fell within one of the classes of nonsignatories entitled to enforce such an agreement. We affirm. Appellant failed to meet its burden to show it was entitled to enforcement, as it offered no evidence to establish it had a relationship with any of the signatories to the arbitration agreements. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2012, Hoyle and her husband filed a complaint alleging causes of action for negligence, fraud and loss of consortium against appellant, New Life Surgery Center, Lee K. Au, M.D., and Tri City Regional Medical Center. They generally alleged that defendants negligently and fraudulently recommended Hoyle for “Lap Band” surgery, knew or should have known that she was not an appropriate candidate for such surgery and negligently performed the surgery, causing significant and permanent bodily injury. On January 11, 2013, appellant and New Life Surgery Center filed a petition to compel arbitration.1 In support of the petition, appellant submitted copies of three arbitration agreements (Agreements) dated February 8, March 19 and April 22, 2011, signed by Hoyle and a representative of “Valencia A.S.C.,” a representative of “Orange County,” and a representative of “Valley Surgical Center,” respectively. In its petition, appellant argued it was entitled to enforce the Agreements pursuant to the provision that “[a]ll claims for monetary damages exceeding the jurisdiction limit of small claims court against the physician, and the physician’s partners, associates, association, corporation or partnership, and the employees, agents and estates of any of them, must be arbitrated.” Though that clause appears in none of the Agreements, each of the Agreements similarly