Citibank NA vs Edward A Jelenich, III

Case Number

25CV00529

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/30/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Default

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted.  This action is ordered stayed pending the completion of arbitration.

Background:

This action commenced on January 24, 2025, by the filing of the judicial council form complaint, for breach of contract, by plaintiff Citibank N.A. (“Citibank”) against defendant Edward A. Jelenich III (“defendant”).

By way of the complaint, Citibank alleges that on May 2, 2019, it entered into a written agreement with defendant for a credit card. (Compl., ¶ BC-1 & Exh. A.) On June 4, 2024, defendant breached the agreement by failing to make payments as agreed. (Id. at ¶ BC-2.) The amount of the unpaid balance, at the time of filing the complaint was $3,575.15. (Id. at ¶ BC-4.)

Defendant filed the present motion for order compelling arbitration and staying, or in the alternative dismissing, this action.

According to the proof of service, Citibank was served with the motion, via mail, on March 6, 2025.

Citibank has filed no opposition or other responsive document to the motion.

Analysis:

“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.)

“[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.)

The arbitration provision is contained in the credit card agreement attached as Exhibit A to the complaint, as well as Exhibit A to defendant’s declaration. It provides, in part:

“PLEASE READ THIS PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY.

“This section provides that disputes may be resolved by binding arbitration. Arbitration replaces the right to go to court, have a jury trial or initiate or participate in a class action. In arbitration, disputes are resolved by an arbitrator, not a judge or jury. Arbitration procedures are simpler and more limited than in court. This arbitration provision is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and shall be interpreted in the broadest way the law will allow.

“Covered claims

• You or we may arbitration any claim, dispute or controversy between you and us arising out of or related to your Account, a previous related Account or our relationship (called ‘Claims’).
• If arbitration is chosen by any party, neither you nor we will have the right to litigate that Claim in court or have a jury trial on that Claim.

Except as stated below, all Claims are subject to arbitration, no matter what legal theory they’re based on or what remedy (damages, or injunctive or declaratory relief) they seek, including Claims based on contact, tort (including intentional tort), fraud, agency, your or our negligence, statutory or regulatory provisions, or any other sources of law; Claims made as counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims, interpleaders or otherwise; Claims made regarding past, present, or future conduct; and Claims made independently or with other claims. This also includes Claims made by or against anyone connected with us or you or claiming through us or you, or by someone making a claim through us or you, such as a co-applicant, authorized user, employee, agent, representative or an affiliated/parent/subsidiary company. . . .

“How arbitration works . . .

• Arbitration may be requested any time, even where there is a pending lawsuit, unless a trial has begun or a final judgment entered. Neither you nor we waive the right to arbitrate by filing or serving a complaint, answer, counterclaim, motion, or discovery in a court lawsuit. To choose arbitration, a party may file a motion to compel arbitration in a pending matter and/or commence arbitration by submitting the required AAA forms and requisite filing fees to the AAA.”

Defendant has met his initial burden of demonstrating the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Citibank, not having filed any opposition, has not provided any reason that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced.

The motion to compel arbitration will be granted and this action will be stayed pending completion of the arbitration.