Discover Bank vs Edward Jelenich

Case Number

24CV05664

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 02/03/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Order Compelling Arbitration and Staying this Action

Tentative Ruling

Discover Bank v. Edward Jelenich                           

Case No. 24CV05664

           

Hearing Date: February 3, 2025                                            

HEARING:              Defendant Edward Jelenich’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Discover Bank: Shane T. Wate, Hootan Atefyekta

                                    For Defendant Edward Jelenich: Self-Represented                          

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendant Edward Jelenich to compel arbitration and stay action is granted. This action is stayed pending completion of arbitration or further order of the court.

Background:

This action was commenced on October 11, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Discover Bank (“plaintiff”) against defendant Edward Jelenich (“defendant”) for Open Book Account and Account Stated.

As alleged in the complaint: Defendant acquired a credit card from plaintiff and has defaulted on his payment obligations in the amount of $9,570.90.

The complaint was served on defendant by personal service on October 20, 2024.

On November 15, 2024, defendant filed the present motion to compel arbitration and stay action. The motion was served on plaintiff, via mail, on November 15, 2024.

Plaintiff has not filed opposition or any other response to the motion.

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.)

Defendant has filed a declaration, declaring that the written agreement between the parties, pertaining to the credit card, contains an arbitration clause. Although defendant was not provided with a true and correct copy of the agreement, he was able to locate a sample of the written agreement that the parties entered into.

The arbitration clause pertains to any dispute between the parties arising out of the credit card account. The clause is mutual, allowing either party to initiate binding arbitration. The arbitration is to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and must proceed only with the American Arbitration Association.

“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.)

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion is an implied acknowledgement that the arbitration agreement exists and is valid. As such, defendant’s motion will be granted, and court proceedings will be stayed pending completion of arbitration or further order of the court.