Rivers v. Academy of Art University CA1/4

Filed 6/6/24 Rivers v. Academy of Art University CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

RONALD DAVID RIVERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A169415 v. (San Francisco City & County ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY Super Ct. No. CGC-21-592393) et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Ronald David Rivers appeals from the trial court’s order granting the petition to confirm an arbitration award brought by co- defendants Academy of Art University, Elisa Stephens, Sue Rowley, Reid Raukar, Marguerite Crooks, and Michael Vartain (collectively, University).1 Because Rivers does not present reasoned legal argument, relevant legal authorities, or proper record citations, he has failed to bear his appellate burden of showing error and waived his ability to argue error even if it could be supported upon proper presentation in this court. To the extent Rivers has presented a line of argument we can follow—it is quite clear he claims

1 According to Rivers’s complaint, Stephens, Rowley, Raukar, and

Crooks were employees of the Academy of Art University, and Vartain was its legal counsel.

1

the University should not have been allowed to cancel his enrollment agreement and then enforce an arbitration clause in the terminated agreement—we disagree. The law is to the contrary when, as here, a cancellation was prospective only. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. I. BACKGROUND In June 2021, Rivers, representing himself, sued the University in San Francisco County Superior Court. He alleged four causes of action—for the infliction of emotional distress, denial of his student right to due process, discrimination, and denial of his state constitutional right to an education. They all were based on his allegation that the University wrongly canceled his enrollment as a student at the University after learning he was a registered sex offender. He included in the exhibits to his complaint an “enrollment agreement” that he had entered into with the University, which provides for cancellation of the agreement by the parties and requires arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in the event of a dispute between them “arising out of or relating to the terms of this Agreement.” He also included a letter from Vartain stating that the Academy of Art University had canceled the agreement on May 19, 2021. After answering Rivers’s complaint and asserting as an affirmative defense that Rivers’s exclusive remedy was contractual arbitration, the University petitioned the court to compel arbitration and stay the action based on the arbitration clause in the enrollment agreement. Rivers opposed the petition on the grounds that the University had waived arbitration and was not entitled to it because of its prior cancellation of the enrollment agreement. The court rejected Rivers’s arguments, including his contention “that the arbitration provision is void because Defendants cancelled the contract. A breach of contract, without more, is insufficient to preclude a