Allen v. Belillti CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Nov 23, 2020 No. B304455Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration because the appellants forfeited their challenge to the trial court's finding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to procedural and substantive unconscionability.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration based on unconscionability.
Whether the appellants forfeited their argument on appeal by failing to address the trial court's unconscionability finding in their opening brief.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude appellants forfeited their argument on unconscionability, and therefore affirm.”

“Because they have forfeited their arguments, appellants have failed to meet their burden of showing the court erred in denying their motion to compel arbitration on unconscionability grounds.”

Filed 11/23/20 Allen v. Belillti CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

DIAHANNA ALLEN, B304455

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19GDCV00161) ORAN BELILLTI, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ralph C. Hofer, Judge. Affirmed. Levison Arshonsky & Kurtz, David Krol, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Collins, Ford, Michael D. Collins for Defendants and Appellants.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and respondent Diahanna Allen is the owner of two residential properties in Glendale: 1538 Highland Avenue (the 1538 Property) and 1613 Highland Avenue (the 1613 Property). Allen hired defendant and appellant Ortam Construction, Inc. (Ortam) to remodel both properties, and signed a series of contracts in connection with the remodeling projects. Based on allegedly defective, shoddy, and incomplete work, Allen sued Ortam, as well as defendants and appellants Oran Belillti (CFO of Ortam), Shalom Belillti (Oran’s father and CEO of Ortam), and Sandra Belillti and Jacqueline Belillti (the spouses of Oran and Shalom, respectively)1, for elder abuse2, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. Ortam and Oran moved to compel arbitration based on arbitration provisions in the home improvement contracts. The trial court denied the motions, holding: (1) no arbitration agreement exists for the 1613 Property based on the explicit language in the contracts; and (2) the arbitration agreement for the 1538 Property is unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable. Ortam and the Individual Defendants do not challenge the trial court’s ruling that the 1613 Property contract does not contain an enforceable arbitration provision, and appeal only from the trial court’s denial of arbitration of claims relating to the 1538 Property contract. In their opening brief, however, they fail to address the dispositive issue: whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the arbitration provision in the 1538 Property agreement was unenforceable due to

Allen v. Belillti CA2/4

AI Brief

DIAHANNA ALLEN, B304455

INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J.

MANELLA, P.J.

WILLHITE, J.

AI Brief