Unknown v. Unknown

issue. Further, the court will at least inquire whether defendant has in fact started paying the money back to plaintiff as defendant states he was required to do as of August 22 (which has now passed).

compel arbitration. The petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Respondent was only served with process on July 31, 2026. The time to respond has not yet expired. As such, it would deny respondent due process to rule on the petition at this time. However, petitioner may reschedule the motion when it would be appropriate to do so.

To aid the parties in the future, the court questions whether there has been an adequate showing on this motion in any event. Petitioner assumes the FAA applies, but that is not clear from the showing. The arbitration clause does not state that it is subject to the FAA. It is true that the FAA governs arbitrations in written agreements involving interstate commerce, but the moving party has the burden of showing that this is such a contract. The court also notes that the contract states that it is governed by Maryland law.

Accordingly, any argument made to compel arbitration must address Maryland law (to the extent not inconsistent with the FAA if the FAA applies) or explain why California law would nonetheless govern. All of that said, the court is not suggesting that these issues cannot be overcome; only that petitioner ought to address them. It might also be that respondent does not oppose the petition to compel arbitration. The parties ought to discuss that in advance of the CMC.

Case Number: 26SMCV00232 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: I

The application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff claims that it rented Unit E from defendant, which plaintiff states included the exclusive use of an attached garage. According to plaintiff, after plaintiff began to complain about certain issues relating to the premises, defendant suddenly suggested that the garage was shared space and demanded access. Worse, according to plaintiff, defendant has changed the garage door opener so plaintiff cannot open the exterior door, and defendant has forced entry into the garage. Plaintiff seeks a TRO to bar defendant from continuing to do so. The court does not believe that plaintiff has claimed that defendant is denying plaintiff use of the garage. Plaintiff also contends that defendant has damaged plaintiff's property in the garage.

The reason that the application is denied is because nowhere in the court file is there a copy of the actual lease. Without the lease, the court cannot say with confidence that defendant actually leased the garage to plaintiff for plaintiff's exclusive use. Plaintiff may file again, but this time plaintiff needs to establish the fundamentals of its claim. | Home