Cardenas v. Big Star Builders CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 2, 2023 No. F084745Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the petition to compel arbitration because the appellant failed to authenticate the arbitration agreement and waived any challenge to the trial court's application of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c).

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding the arbitration agreement was not properly authenticated.
Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c) to deny arbitration due to the risk of conflicting rulings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s first ground asserted for denying appellant’s third motion to compel arbitration was its conclusion that appellant had failed to properly prove that an arbitration clause existed in this case.”

“Appellant’s complete failure to dispute one of the two aspects underlying the trial court’s order is fatal to its appeal.”

“The court finds that an order compelling arbitration in this instance would create the possibility of conflicting rulings on common factual and/or legal issues”

Filed 8/2/23 Cardenas v. Big Star Builders CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JOSE CARDENAS et al., F084745 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. CV-21-005567) v.

BIG STAR BUILDERS, INC., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. John D. Freeland, Judge. Law Offices of Elvis Tran, Elvis Tran and Jason Hoang for Defendant and Appellant. Golden & Cardona-Loya and Octavio Cardona-Loya II for Plaintiffs and Respondents. -ooOoo-

Appellant Big Star Builders, Inc. appeals following the trial court’s denial of its third petition for an order compelling arbitration and staying all proceedings. Appellant is seeking to force arbitration between itself and respondents Jose Cardenas and Elena Zarate Carrillo in lieu of the litigation respondents filed against appellant and several other companies who were involved in the installation of solar panels at respondents’ home. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2021, respondents filed an action against appellant and several other companies, including Greensky, LLC, Equisolar, Inc., American Contractors Indemnity Company, and Wesco Insurance Company, alleging various causes of action related to what respondents contend was a botched sale and installation of solar panels at their home. According to respondents, they were approached by a salesperson, Noel Montoya, who was acting as an agent for appellant, Equisolar, Inc., and Greensky, LLC. Montoya made several claims regarding the proposed system, including that it would generate a specific amount of power, would eliminate respondents’ electricity bill, and that respondents would be reimbursed for any failure on the part of the system to produce the promised quantity of electricity. Respondents were charged and paid at least $10,000, allegedly before any work was commenced, yet found that the system installed failed to generate the proper amount of power and eliminate their electric bill. They did not receive reimbursement for the underperformance. Respondents alleged the work performed was eventually found to be substandard, that attempted repairs not only failed to fix the problems but further damaged their property, and that additional promises not kept by appellant and the other companies resulted in respondents being told by Greensky, LLC that they would be required to pay late charges for fees that were supposed to be covered by appellant.

Cardenas v. Big Star Builders CA5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

LEVY, J.

MEEHAN, J.

AI Brief