Lazar vs. Irvine Management Company

312 Lazar vs. Irvine Defendants Tustin Rancho Monterey LLC and Management Irvine Management Company’s motion to compel Company arbitration is GRANTED. (See 9 U.S.C. § 2.)

Plaintiffs Heidi Lazar and Russell Lazar shall submit their claims against Defendants to binding arbitration, including questions about the applicability, validity, formation, and enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

This action is stayed pending completion of arbitration. (See 9 U.S.C. § 3; Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

The Court declines to rule on Defendants’ request for judicial notice because the evidence is not material to the Court’s analysis.

Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objection no. 8 is OVERRULED. The Court declines to rule on all other evidentiary objections because the evidence is not material to the Court’s analysis.

Defendants’ evidentiary objection no. 1 is SUSTAINED. All other evidentiary objections are moot.

The Federal Arbitration Act governs the arbitration agreement at issue. (See 9 U.S.C. § 2; Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8 LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 355 [the FAA applies if it is so stated in the agreement]; see also Declaration of Ricky Pena, Ex. B at ¶ 1.) When deciding whether a valid arbitration agreement exists under the FAA, courts generally apply “ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts.” (First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944.)

Defendants met their burden to show a written arbitration exists between the parties. (See Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [burden].) By its plain terms, the arbitration agreement here clearly and unmistakably delegates to the arbitrator the exclusive authority to resolve “any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this agreement.” (See