NAVIN HEMRAJANI v. DAVID GLASS, et al.

(Oviya Sivasangary Declaration, filed August 19, 2026, Exhibit B ("Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.'s Offer to Compromise"), P. 2.) (Underscoring added.)

Here, Plaintiff had not performed the condition precedent for getting attorneys' fees and costs of more than the $5,000.00 already paid on July 16, 2026. Specifically, the Motion was filed on July 23, 2026, more than 60 days after Defendant paid the settlement amount on April 15, 2026. (See ibid., P.P. 6-9.)

Further, given those binding provisions of the settlement contract, the Court need not further apply law applicable to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion, pursuant to the settlement terms.

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 311 Tentative Ruling

NAVIN HEMRAJANI vs DAVID GLASS, et al. | September 1, 2026 8:30 AM | | | NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.

RULING: The Court grants the unopposed Motion. Plaintiff and Defendants shall arbitrate the controversies between them including this entire action. This case is stayed until such arbitration is had in accordance with this Order.

The Court schedules a Status Conference Re: Arbitration on September 1, 2028 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 311. Defendant to give notice.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2026, NAVIN HEMRAJANI (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against ENENSTEIN PHAM GLASS & RABBAT, APC and DAVID GLASS (Defendants), listing Causes of Action for: 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE LEGAL MALPRACTICE 2. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 3. BREACH OF CONTRACT. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants as attorneys negligently handled a family law action in which Plaintiff was a party.

On August 5, 2026, Defendants filed the Motion to Compel Arbitration, based upon an Engagement Agreement. Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to this matter.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Parties petitioning to compel arbitration have the burden to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of evidence, and parties opposing have the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to a defense. (Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 111, 121.)

Where a court has ordered arbitration, it shall stay the pending action until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate, or another earlier time, and the stay may be with respect to an issue that is severable. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281.4; Mattson Tech., Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1161; Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152, 1154, fn. 12.)

III. ANALYSIS

Defendants assert that there is an "Engagement Agreement" with Plaintiff dated August 30, 2024, requiring any disputes to be submitted to binding arbitration. Parties seeking to compel arbitration meet their initial burden simply by reciting the terms of the governing provision, or by attaching a copy of the provisions, unless there is a dispute over authenticity. (Sprunk v. Prisma LLC (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 785, 793; Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 846.)

The Declaration of Defendant DAVID GLASS filed with the Motion sufficiently includes the Engagement Agreement (Exhibit A) containing paragraph 13.1 providing for arbitration for any claim arising out of the contract.

IV. CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Court grants the Motion, for reasons stated. | Home -->)" -->