Jeffrey W. Arricale v. Liberty
Application for admission pro hac vice
Motion type
Causes of action
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
P. 5 is DENIED. Defendant is to answer the First Amended Complaint within 10 days.
(1)"Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (2)"Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. (Civ. Code Sec. 3294(c)(1) & (2).)
who was CFO of Defendant Liberty, alleges that he was defamed by Defendants for refusing to facilitate certain acts and practices Plaintiff believed to be fraudulent and illegal. Attorney Neil Cartusciello moves for admission pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff Jeffrey W. Arricale.
The application of Attorney Neil Cartusciello for admission pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff Jeffrey W. Arricale is GRANTED. Case Number: 26STCV15673 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: 734 Plaintiff argues that Defendants have breached an Operating Agreement regarding an LLC which purchased property. Defendants Andrew Triphon, 26 Dmitri Triphon and Vlad Gorshteyn move to compel arbitration. TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Andrew Triphon, 26 Dmitri Triphon and Vlad Gorshteyn's motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's request for an evidentiary hearing to determine formation facts is DENIED. This action is ordered stayed pending arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1281.4.) A status conference re: arbitration is set for January 22, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. Status conference briefs are due one week prior. ANALYSIS Discussion The Court has reviewed the moving, opposing and reply briefs filed by the parties, but only addresses the points which the Court deems to be material to the disposition of this motion.
Defendants Andrew Triphon, 26 Dmitri Triphon and Vlad Gorshteyn move to compel arbitration. Existence of Agreement To Arbitrate Under California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”