Petition to compel contractual arbitration
before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at. The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at. Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.
Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5223 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.
NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.
PLEASE NOTE: JUDGE HESSELTINE IS UNAVAILABLE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2026. THE PARTIES MAY EITHER SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULINGS SET FORTH BELOW OR APPEAR ON JUNE 11, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., TO REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT, AND THE COURT CLERK WILL PROVIDE A HEARING DATE AS DIRECTED BY JUDGE HESSELTINE. IF NO ONE APPEARS TO REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT, ALL PARTIES WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE SUBMITTED ON THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND IT WILL BE ADOPTED AS THE FINAL RULING OF THE COURT.
# Case Name Case Number Tentative 1. Landmark Research Group, LLC vs. Shea 2026-01561746 Please see notice above regarding oral argument on this motion/petition Before the court is the petition of petitioner Landmark Research Group, LLC (Petitioner) to compel contractual arbitration. As more fully set forth below, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, subdivision (a), requires a petition to compel arbitration and notice of hearing to be served on the opposing party in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement. If the agreement does not provide a method of service and the respondent has not appeared in the case, section 1290.4, subdivision (a), requires the petition and notice of hearing to be served in the same manner as a summons if service is made in California. If service is made outside of California, service may be made by certified or registered mail and a signed return receipt is required.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, Petitioner has failed to file a proof of service showing the petition or a notice of hearing was served on respondents Bart Shea, Bermite Recovery, LLC, Remediation Financial, Inc., or Shea-Connelly Development, LLC (collectively, Respondents). Petitioner has not identified any provision in the alleged arbitration agreement that dictates a particular method of service for this petition, nor has Petitioner provided any evidence to show where service may have been made, if at all.
Moreover, it is unclear whether any of Respondents entered into an arbitration agreement with Petitioner. The agreement that is attached to the petition is a letter agreement by Petitioner addressed to Richard R. Thomas, Esq. of Smith LC in Mesa, Arizona. There is a signature line for “Approved, Responsible Party,” but there is no indication who the “Responsible Party” is and the signature is not legible. Moreover, assuming the signature is that of Bart Shea, there is no evidence or other indication how that signature binds any of the other Respondents. The letter also does not include all the identified enclosures.
The petition therefore is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on the lack of service and proper notice, as well as the failure to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement between Petitioner and Respondent. The foregoing are not necessarily all the petition’s shortcomings, but they are sufficient to support its denial. Any future petition will require much greater detail and evidentiary support as well as proper notice and service. Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
2. McPhatter vs. Fastrak Credit Corp. 2026-01563881 Please see notice above regarding oral argument on this motion/petition Before the court is the petition to compel arbitration and for monetary sanctions filed by petitioner Vardell James McPhatter (Petitioner). As more fully set forth below, the petition is GRANTED and Petitioner is awarded sanctions against respondent Fastrak Credit Corp. (Respondent) in the reduced amount of $1,815.