Williams v. 3620 W. 102nd Street, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Aug 24, 2020 No. B297824Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Arbitration provisions contained within residential lease agreements are void as a matter of California public policy under Civil Code section 1953, subdivision (a)(4), because they require tenants to waive procedural rights such as the right to a jury trial.

Issues

Whether arbitration provisions in a residential lease agreement are void under California Civil Code section 1953, subdivision (a)(4).
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies to the arbitration agreement in the absence of evidence affecting interstate commerce.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“state public policy prohibits arbitration provisions in residential lease agreements.”

“a tenant “cannot validly agree . . . to binding arbitration to resolve disputes regarding his or her rights and obligations as a tenant.””

“The leases’ arbitration agreements violate state public policy.”

Filed 8/24/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

KEISA WILLIAMS et al. B297824

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC639290) v.

3620 W. 102ND STREET, INC., et al.

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ramona G. See, Judge. Affirmed.

The Cameron Law Firm, Parry G. Cameron, James K. Autrey and Clayton T. Lee for Defendants and Appellants.

MYBEDBUGLAWYER, Brian J. Virag and Luiza Patrikyan for Plaintiffs and Respondents. ____________________

Five people sued about bed bugs and other problems with a property they rented. The owners of the property moved to compel arbitration based on agreements in the residents’ leases. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm because state public policy prohibits arbitration provisions in residential lease agreements. (Civ. Code, § 1953, subd. (a)(4); Harris v. University Village Thousand Oaks, CCRC, LLC. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 847, 850 (Harris).) All statutory citations are to the California Civil Code. I In March 2014, Keisa Williams and Rubin Womack leased an apartment at 3620 W. 102nd Street. They renewed the lease in 2015. Womack lived there with Williams, Williams’s two children, and another person. We call these five the Residents. Two entities, 3620 W. 102nd Street, Inc. and J.K. Residential Services, Inc., own the property where the Residents live. We call them the Owners. On October 2, 2016, the Residents sued the Owners for breach of warranties of habitability, negligence, and related claims. The Residents said the Owners failed to maintain pest control in both their unit and the apartment’s common areas. The Residents said they suffered personal injuries, illness, and property damage due to bed bugs. On March 14, 2019, the Owners filed a petition to compel arbitration based on section XVIII of the lease agreement. The section has the heading “Indemnification and Liability” and includes the following arbitration clause: “Should any dispute arise between LANDLORD and TENANT relating to any matter (excluding an Unlawful Detainer case or other case, filed by LANDLORD, for possession,

Williams v. 3620 W. 102nd Street, Inc.

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WILEY, J.

STRATTON, J.

AI Brief