Hawkins v. Rechnitz CA2/8

Filed 7/1/21 Hawkins v. Rechnitz CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

OPAL RENEE HULET B304828 HAWKINS, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19STCV30411)

v.

SHLOMO RECHNITZ et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Barbara M. Scheper, Judge. Affirmed.

Giovanniello Law Group, Alexander F. Giovanniello, Thomas C. Swann and Erik Bressler for Defendants and Appellants.

Garcia & Artigliere, Stephen M. Garcia and William M. Artigliere for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendants and appellants Shlomo Rechnitz, Centinela Skilled Nursing & Centre East, LLC, doing business as Osage Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Brius Management Company and Rockport Administrative Services, LLC appeal from the orders denying their motions to compel arbitration of the elder abuse complaint filed by plaintiff and respondent Opal Renee Hulet Hawkins. The trial court found the arbitration agreement could not be enforced against plaintiff because defendants failed to prove plaintiff’s mother had authority to sign the agreement on plaintiff’s behalf. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In December 2015, plaintiff was admitted to defendant Centinela Skilled Nursing & Centre East, a residential nursing facility doing business as Osage Healthcare & Wellness Centre (hereafter Osage Healthcare). Defendants Brius Management Company and Rockport Administrative Services are entities owned by defendant Shlomo Rechnitz and are involved in the operation and management of Osage Healthcare. During the admission process, plaintiff’s mother, Martha Hulet, signed several documents on behalf of her daughter, including an admission agreement and an arbitration agreement. Ms. Hulet signed all of the documents on December 28, 2015, and is identified in those documents variously as plaintiff’s “[r]epresentative,” “agent” or “[l]egal [g]uardian.” The arbitration agreement identifies Ms. Hulet as plaintiff’s “ ‘Legal Representative’ and/or ‘Agent.’ ” None of the documents was signed by plaintiff. The record does not contain any power of attorney executed by plaintiff or any other document expressly authorizing Ms. Hulet to act as plaintiff’s agent. The arbitration agreement invokes the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA; 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) and provides that any dispute