YOSEF PERETZ ET AL VS. PETER LOUKIANOFF ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Wednesday, August 20, 2025, Line 8. DEFENDANT PETER LOUKIANOFF's MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.

Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay is denied. "The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense." (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.)

The parties fee agreement provides: If any dispute arises between the Attorneys and the Client regarding the Attorneys' compensation or any other action arising from this relationship, including professional negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty or other alleged wrongdoing, the dispute will be submitted for arbitration to the Bar Association of San Francisco. (Peretz Decl., par. 5, Ex. 1.)

The agreement does not provide for binding arbitration and the reference to the Bar Association of San Francisco indicates an intent for the parties to comply with the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act ("MFAA"), where a client has the option of arbitrating a fee dispute. (Business & Professions Code section 6200 et seq.; Perez v. Grajales (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 580, 596-597 [explaining MFAA program and noting that "[a]rbitration under the MFAA provides the client with an alternative means of resolving fee disputes, not one in addition to traditional litigation."] (cleaned up).)

Because the Bar Association of San Francisco ("BASF") discontinued its fee program (Peretz Decl., par. 19), the parties elected to have the MFA before the State Bar. (Peretz Decl., par. 20, Ex. 2.) The parties have therefore performed their agreement.

If the parties intended binding arbitration and a waiver of the right to a jury trial, then the agreement would clearly reflect that. Absent a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate, courts will not infer the waiver of the right to a jury trial. (Titan Group, Inc. v. Sonoma Valley County Sanitation Dist. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1122, 1129.)

Defendant's argument that the arbitrator decides arbitrability similarly fails since there is no clear and unmistakable delegation clause. (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017)13 Cal.App.5th 880, 892 [delegation clause must be "clear and unmistakable."].)

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. =(301/JMT) | |