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 Najarro v. Superior Court (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 871, 879-880; Pena Decl., Ex. B ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show the delegation clause is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 895 [“When determining whether a delegation clause is unconscionable, any claim of unconscionability must be specific to the delegation clause.”].)

Plaintiffs’ argument that Civil Code section 1953, subdivision (a)(4) renders the arbitration agreement void as against public policy and the arbitration agreement does not cover Plaintiffs’ claims go to the applicability, validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement. Those issues are for the arbitrator to decide pursuant to the delegation clause.

The court sets a status conference re: arbitration for 2/22/27 at 8:45am in Dept. C24.

Defendants shall give notice.

314 Phol vs. The motion by attorney Christopher J. Keller to be Synched, LLC relieved as counsel for defendant Synched, LLC will be GRANTED, as set forth herein.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 sets forth the requirements for an attorney moving to withdraw. The motion and declaration complies with Rule 3.1362 and there is good cause to grant the motion.