MCB Valley Properties v. Etter CA1/1

Filed 6/30/21 MCB Valley Properties v. Etter CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

MCB VALLEY PROPERTIES, LLC ET AL., Defendants and Appellants, A161159

v. (Humboldt County MARY V. ETTER, Individually and as Super. Ct. No. CV2000752) Trustee of the MARY V. ETTER TRUST, ET AL., Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Defendant MCB Valley Properties, LLC (MCB) leased ranch property from plaintiffs Mary V. Etter, Mary S. Etter, and the Mary V. Etter Trust (collectively, the Etters).1 The lease contains two provisions that are seemingly at odds. One allows the Etters “to proceed by appropriate judicial proceedings” for certain violations of the lease. The other states that “[a]ny unresolved controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Lease shall be submitted to arbitration.” After MCB allegedly failed to pay rent and otherwise violated the lease, the Etters brought this unlawful detainer proceeding. Relying on the second provision, MCB sought to compel

Future references to MCB include defendant Greenfield Farm 1

Holdings LLC, which allegedly subleased all or a portion of the ranch from MCB. 1

arbitration, which the trial court denied. MCB appeals from the denial, and we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Etters own a ranch in Honeydew. In June 2018, they leased the ranch to MCB for agricultural purposes, including growing commercial cannabis. A couple of years later, the Etters sent MCB two notices of default in accordance with the terms of the lease. The first notified MCB that it was in violation of the lease for allowing vegetation to become overgrown and failing to maintain buildings and other improvements. The second notified MCB that it was in violation of the lease for not paying rent, taxes, and utilities totaling over $178,087. After MCB allegedly failed to cure the violations, the Etters filed this unlawful detainer action. In response, MCB moved to compel arbitration, relying on section 30(g) of the lease. Section 30 is titled “Miscellaneous,” and paragraph (g) provides that “[a]ny unresolved controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Lease shall be submitted to arbitration.” The trial court denied the motion based on sections 21 and 22 of the lease. Section 21 describes “Events of Default.” One such event is the tenant’s failure to pay rent within 10 days after being given notice of non- payment. Other such events include the tenant’s failure to timely perform or observe other lease terms, conditions, and covenants without beginning to rectify the failure within 30 days after being given notice. Section 22 is entitled “Remedies,” and paragraph (a) explains that certain provisions apply if the lease “is terminated pursuant to Section 21 or if Landlord reenters or obtains possession of the Premises by summary proceedings or any other legal action or proceeding.” Paragraph (c) states