Case Number: BS166163??? Hearing Date: January 20, 2017??? Dept: 37
CASE NAME: Engel & Engel, LLP v. Bell
CASE NUMBER: BS166163
HEARING DATE: 1/20/17
CALENDAR NUMBER: 5
DATE FILED: 11/18/16
TRIAL DATE: N/A
NOTICE: OK
PROCEEDING: Petition to Compel Arbitration
PETITIONER: Engel & Engel, LLP
RESPONDENT: Laura Lyn Bell (aka Laura Lyn Lipscomb)
COURT?S TENTATIVE RULING
The unopposed petition to compel arbitration is granted. Counsel for Petitioner to give notice.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This special proceeding arises out of an agreement for the provision of accounting services. Petitioner Engel & Engel, LLP alleges that it entered into a written agreement with Respondent Laura Lyn Bell (aka Laura Lyn Lipscomb), pursuant to which it agreed to provide certain accounting services in exchange for payment. Petitioner alleges that a dispute over the fees owed has arisen due to Respondent?s failure and refusal to pay. Petitioner asserts that it has claims for breach of contract, account stated, book account, quantum meruit, and promissory fraud. Petitioner seeks to compel arbitration of the dispute pursuant to a provision in the written accounting agreement. Respondent does not oppose the petition.
DISCUSSION
The issue raised by this petition is whether there exists a valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate the subject dispute. (Code Civ. Proc., ? 1281.2.) California favors arbitration as an efficient and less expensive means of resolving private disputes, and courts resolve doubts about an arbitration agreement?s scope in favor of arbitration. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 8-9.) As the party seeking to compel arbitration, the petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) In the event any defense to the agreement is raised, the court must then determine whether the agreement is enforceable. (Ibid.)
Petitioner has carried its burden to show that an agreement to arbitrate the subject dispute exists. It submits a letter dated December 17, 2015 that it sent to David I. Leftkowitz of Wilshire Palisades Law Group, P.C., stating that Petitioner was engaged to provide consulting and expert witness services in connection with a matter styled Bell v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC. The letter also provides that although Mr. Leftkowitz?s firm retained Petitioner?s services, the payment of Petitioner?s fees was the responsibility of Respondent Bell. The letter was signed by Jason A. Engel on Petitioner?s behalf, by Respondent (Ms. Bell) and by David I. Leftkowitz on behalf of his firm. With respect to binding arbitration, the letter provides as follows:
It is hereby agreed that should any dispute, controversy or claim arise in connection with the services to be provided under this agreement, or the charges incurred thereby, same shall be decided by binding arbitration, before the Alternative Resolution Centers in Los Angeles, California, pursuant to said associations? [sic] rules in effect at the time the Demand for Arbitration is filed.
(Biggins Decl., Exh. 1.) The claims asserted by Petitioner in this dispute?i.e., breach of contract, account stated, book account, quantum meruit, and promissory fraud?are covered by this agreement, as they all arise in connection with Petitioner?s accounting services and the charges Respondent allegedly incurred in connection with those services. Although Petitioner asserts promissory fraud and seeks punitive damages, this is essentially a collections case, a dispute encompassed by the arbitration agreement.
Respondent does not oppose the petition. Petitioner?s counsel sets forth his attempts to confer with Respondent in his declaration (Biggins Decl. ?? 3-4), and the proof of service submitted by Petitioner shows that Respondent was served the summons, petition, notice of hearing, and related documents by personal service on November 30, 2016 at 21271 Burbank Boulevard, #110, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. The consequence of Respondent?s failure to respond to the petition is that Petitioner?s allegations are deemed to be admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., ? 1290.) Additionally, Respondent has failed to raise a defense or show that the arbitration agreement is not enforceable.
Accordingly, because Petitioner has shown that an agreement to arbitration the subject dispute exists, the unopposed petition to compel arbitration is granted.