B.J. Seebol, et al. v. Edith Oakeson, et al.

Case Number

24CV02384

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 12/09/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Defendants Edith Oakeson and Oakeson Family Survivors Trust’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Claims

Tentative Ruling

B.J. Seebol, et al. v. Edith Oakeson, et al.       

Case No. 24CV02384

           

Hearing Date: December 9, 2024                                           

HEARING:              Defendants Edith Oakeson and Oakeson Family Survivors Trust’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Claims

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiffs BJ Seebol and Barbara J. Seebol Revocable Living Trust: Self-Represented

                                    For Defendants Edith Oakeson and Oakeson Family Survivors Trust: Lacy L. Taylor, Karine F. Wegrzynowicz

                                    For Defendants Fred Swetman and Escalera Pest Control: Patrick E. Stockalper, Carina M. Jordan

                                   

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendants Edith Oakeson and Oakeson Family Survivors Trust to compel arbitration and stay claims is granted as to the moving parties. The claims against Edith Oakeson and Oakeson Family Survivors Trust are stayed pending the arbitration. The action shall continue as against defendants Fred Swetman and Escalera Pest Control.

Background:

This action was commenced on April 29, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiffs B.J. Seebol and Barbara J. Seebol Revocable Living Trust (“plaintiff”) against defendants Edith Oakeson, Oakeson Family Survivors Trust (collectively, “Oakeson”), and Fred Swetman dba Escalera Pest Control (“Escalera”). The complaint sets forth a cause of action for breach of contract as to Oakeson, a cause of action for breach of contract as to Escalera, a cause of action for fraud as to Oakeson, a cause of action for fraud as to Escalera, a cause of action for general negligence as to Oakeson, and a cause of action for general negligence as to Escalera.

By way of the complaint, plaintiff alleges that she purchased a mobile home from Oakeson, located at 340 Old Mill Road #10, Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleges that Oakeson failed to disclose numerous issues with the mobile home, including problems with the roof, insurability of the mobile home, the habitable square footage, the condition of the driveway, the condition of the plumbing, and the condition of the electrical.

As to Escalera, plaintiff alleges that, prior to listing the mobile home for sale, Oakeson engaged the services of Escalera to perform an assessment of repair and replacement of damaged structural areas and pest control services needed on the home and surrounding soil. Plaintiff paid extra to do a more thorough “heat treatment,” which was done improperly, so plaintiff arranged to have the treatment done a second time. Plaintiff then found that several of the repairs done by Escalera were unsatisfactory and that heat treatments are not appropriate for mobile homes. Plaintiff believes that the first heat treatment was either not done at all, or it was performed to a lesser degree than normal. Plaintiff also believes that “spot treatments” that Escalera represented they performed were not done and that the only thing done was filling holes with putty.

Oakeson filed an answer to the complaint on September 5, 2024, asserting a general denial and twenty affirmative defenses. Escalera Pest Control and Fred Swetman filed individual answers, alleging that the designation of Fred Swetman dba Escalera Pest Control is erroneous, and setting forth general denials and affirmative defenses.

On September 23, 2024, Oakeson filed the present motion to compel arbitration and stay claims based on an arbitration provision contained in purchase agreement for the mobile home.

Plaintiff filed a “response” to the motion and does not appear to dispute that her claims against Oakeson are subject to mandatory arbitration, arguing that she filed the present action out of concern for the statute of limitations. However, plaintiff asks that the court stay the motion “for the next eight to ten months while Discovery and other pre-trial matters proceed.

Analysis:

“[T]he Legislature has expressed a ‘strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution.’ [Citations.] Consequently, courts will ‘indulge every intendment to give effect to such proceedings.’ [Citations.]” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9.)

“The burden of persuasion is always on the moving party to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement with the opposing party by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 164.)

“The party seeking arbitration bears the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of an arbitration agreement. Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, the litigant opposing arbitration must demonstrate grounds which require that the agreement to arbitration not be enforced.” (Harris v. TAP Worldwide, LLC (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 373, 380-381.)

Oakeson has provided a copy of the purchase agreement containing the arbitration agreement as Exhibit A to the motion. Plaintiff does not deny that she signed the agreement.

The arbitration clause provides:

“The Parties agree that any dispute or claim in law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by a neutral, binding arbitration. The Parties also agree to arbitrate any disputes or claims with Broker(s), who, in writing, agree to such arbitration prior to, or within a reasonable time after, the dispute or claim is presented to the Broker. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or justice, or an attorney with at least 5 years of residential real estate Law experience, unless the parties mutually agree to a different arbitrator. The Parties shall the right to discovery in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §1283.05. In all other respects, the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Judgment upon the award of the arbitrator(s) may be entered into any court having jurisdiction. Enforcement of this agreement to arbitrate shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. Exclusions from this arbitration agreement are specified in paragraph 24C.

            “ ‘NOTICE: BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE ‘ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES’ PROVISION DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS YOU MIGHT POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND APPEAL, UNLESS THOSE RIGHTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE ‘ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES’ PROVISION. IF YOU REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION AFTER AGREEING TO THIS PROVISION, YOU MAY BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. YOUR AGREEMENT TO THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION IS VOLUNTARY.’ ”

            “ ‘WE HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND AGREE TO SUBMIT DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE ‘ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES’ PROVISION TO NEUTRAL ARBITRATION.’ ” (Purchase Agreement, ¶ 24, subd. (B).)

The dispute resolution provision is initialed by plaintiff and Oakeson.

“A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.)

As noted above, plaintiff does not deny that she signed the arbitration agreement. She argues that she was entitled to file the present action under the exclusion under paragraph 24, subdivision (C)(2), which includes that the filing of a court action to preserve a statute of limitations does not constitute a waiver or violation of the arbitration provisions. Plaintiff’s point is taken, that she filed the action to preserve the statute of limitations. However, by its plain language, the exclusion simply states that doing so only means that a party has not waived the arbitration provision or violated the arbitration agreement. It does not negate a parties’ ability to compel arbitration pursuant to the agreement.

Plaintiff’s request that the court make findings regarding attorneys’ fees would not be proper and is not before the court by way of Oakeson’s motion. Also, to address plaintiff’s concern about not being permitted to retain an attorney: nothing contained in this order prevents plaintiff from doing so. As for plaintiff’s request that the court defer ruling on this motion “for the next eight to ten months while Discovery and other pre-trial matters proceed”: That request would defeat the purpose of arbitration, and will be denied.

Oakeson has proven the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate grounds which require that the agreement to arbitrate not be enforced. As such, the motion will be granted to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims against Oakeson. The claims against Oakeson will be stayed in this action pending the completion of arbitration. The action may proceed against Escalera.