Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

TESSER RUTTENBERG & GROSSMAN 

LLP, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

FOREVER ENTERTAINMENT LLC et al., 

Defendants and Appellants. 

 B249042 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. BC498140) 

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael L. 

Stern, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman and Edward A. Hoffman for Defendants and 

Appellants. 

 Goodman & Goodman and Howard Goodman for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2 

 Defendants and appellants Forever Entertainment LLC (Forever), Forever 

Entertainment Partners LLC (Partners), John Hertz and Brittney Ryan (collectively, 

defendants) appeal from the trial court’s order denying their petition to compel arbitration 

of an action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and account stated by plaintiff and 

respondent Tesser, Ruttenberg & Grossman LLP (plaintiff). We affirm the trial court’s 

order. 

BACKGROUND 

The parties 

 Forever is a California limited liability company and a former client of the law 

firm of Tesser & Ruttenberg (T&R). Partners is a wholly owned subsidiary of Forever 

that was formed in July 2010. Hertz and Ryan are managing members of Forever and 

Partners. 

 Plaintiff is the assignee of claims for unpaid legal fees assigned by T&R against 

Forever, Hertz, Ryan, and Partners. 

March 2009 agreement 

 On March 9, 2009, T&R, Forever, Hertz, and Ryan entered into an “Agreement 

for Continued Representation,” in which Forever agreed to pay more than $163,345 in 

outstanding fees owed to T&R in exchange for T&R’s continued legal representation. 

Hertz and Ryan also agreed to pay a portion of Forever’s outstanding fees from monies 

received by either of them in any transfer or assignment of their membership interests in 

Forever. The March 2009 agreement contains no arbitration provision. 

May 2009 agreement 

 On May 26, 2009, Forever, Hertz, and Ryan entered into a second agreement with 

T&R. The May 2009 agreement identifies Forever as the “Client” and T&R as the 

“Firm.” The agreement was signed by Ryan and Hertz as individuals and as managing 

members of Forever and by attorney Brian Grossman on behalf of T&R. 

 The May 2009 agreement states: “This is a written fee agreement (the 

‘Agreement’) between the Firm and Client to provide legal services to Client on the terms 

set forth below. This Agreement supersedes any prior fee agreement between Client and 
3 

the Firm. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each of the terms set forth in the Agreement for 

Continued Representation dated March 9, 2009 shall remain in full force and effect.” 

 In the May 2009 agreement, T&R agreed to represent Forever in connection with 

eight specified matters, including a matter indentified as the “Joel Hecht matter.” T&R 

also agreed to represent Hertz and Ryan, but only in connection with the Joel Hecht 

matter. 

 The May 2009 agreement contains an arbitration provision that states in relevant 

part as follows: 

“By executing this retainer agreement, Client and the Firm are 

agreeing to have any and all disputes that arise out of, or relate to this 

Agreement, including but not limited to claims of negligence or malpractice 

arising out of or relating to the legal services provided by the Firm to 

Client, decided only by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of 

the Los Angeles County Bar Association and not by court action, except as 

provided by California law for review of judicial arbitration 

proceedings. . . .” 

“In agreeing to this arbitration provision, THE FIRM AND CLIENT 

ARE SPECIFICALLY GIVING UP: 

 “(I) ALL RIGHTS THE FIRM AND CLIENT MAY POSSESS TO 

HAVE SUCH DISPUTES DECIDED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL; 

AND 

 “(II) ALL JUDICIAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO 

APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATOR(S).” 

 T&R ceased representing Forever, Hertz, and Ryan in December 2010. Attorney 

Frank Taboada substituted in as Forever’s counsel in the active court cases in January 

2011. 

Arbitration notice 

 Attorney Taboada received five documents entitled “Notice of Client’s Right to 

Arbitration” by mail in April or May of 2012. The notices all listed claims by plaintiff 

against Forever totaling $289,571.30 in five different matters that did not include the Joel 

Hecht matter. 
4 

Motion to compel arbitration 

Plaintiff filed the instant action against Forever, Partners, Hertz and Ryan on 

December 27, 2012. The complaint alleged that Partners and Forever were alter egos of 

each other. The complaint further alleged that T&R had assigned its claims against 

defendants to plaintiff, that defendants owed $349,011.82 in outstanding fees, that 

plaintiff had served arbitration notices on Forever, and that Forever had not responded to 

the notices. 

 Defendants’ counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel on March 12, 2013, demanding 

arbitration of the case pursuant to the arbitration provision in the May 2009 agreement. 

Plaintiff’s counsel responded: “My clients have decided not to arbitrate. There are 

several defendants who are not parties to the contract and who are also not parties to the 

arbitration agreement including Forever Entertainment Partners, John Hertz and Brittney 

Ryan. The non contracting parties cannot compel arbitration and the plaintiff can refuse 

to arbitrate with the parties who are not subject to the arbitration agreement.” 

 Defendants thereafter filed a motion to compel arbitration. In its opposition, 

plaintiff stated that it “has no objection to binding arbitration” so long as the arbitration 

included “all causes of action against all defendants including causes of action based on 

the law of alter ego liability.” In the alternative, plaintiff requested “that the arbitration 

be limited to issues and parties subject to arbitration and that issues and parties not 

subject to arbitration be reserved and litigated at the conclusion of the arbitration.” 

 In reply, defendants argued that the parties’ agreement did not allow arbitration of 

the alter ego liability claim. They pointed out that the arbitration agreement specified 

that the arbitration would be governed by the Los Angeles County Bar Association rules. 

Those rules, defendants argued, do not allow the arbitrators to decide alter ego claims. 

April 25, 2013 hearing 

 At the outset of the hearing on defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, 

defendants’ counsel asked whether the trial court had received defendants’ reply brief and 

proposed order. The court stated that it had not received it and therefore had not read any 

reply brief. The parties then proceeded to argue their respective positions. Plaintiff 
5 

expressed its willingness to arbitrate, noting that the only issue in dispute was whether 

the arbitration would include the alter ego claim. The trial court stated that if the parties 

“really want to arbitrate, I’ll let you stipulate to arbitrate” but emphasized that any 

arbitration must be “all or nothing.” In response, defendants argued that the parties had 

contractually agreed to arbitrate their claims in accordance with the rules of the Los 

Angeles County Bar Association, and those rules did not allow arbitration of the alter ego 

claim. Defendants further argued that because the parties had also contractually agreed to 

give up all rights to a court action, plaintiff was not entitled to adjudication of its alter ego 

claim. 

 The trial court announced that its tentative ruling had been to deny the motion to 

compel arbitration. When defendants expressed surprise at the tentative ruling, the trial 

court directed them to the email correspondence between the parties and noted that the 

correspondence “was a deciding factor” in its decision. The court further stated: “You 

all decided not to arbitrate.” Defendants argued in response that only the plaintiff had 

decided against arbitration. The trial court asked: “You all want to arbitrate?” Plaintiff’s 

counsel responded, “Only if we arbitrate everything; otherwise, no.” The trial court then 

asked: “All or nothing?” When plaintiff’s counsel responded in the affirmative, the trial 

court stated: “As far as I’m concerned, arbitration would also be all or nothing, too.” 

 Defendants’ counsel then suggested that the parties first determine whether the 

Los Angeles County Bar Association would agree to arbitrate the alter ego claim. The 

court responded: “I understand the possible -- possible logistics or strategy as you detail 

them, but that is not the consideration, in terms of whether you’re in or out of the 

arbitration based on the clause and the subsequent conduct of the parties.” The trial court 

then denied the motion to compel arbitration. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION 

I. Governing legal principles 

 An “order denying a petition to compel arbitration, like any other judgment or 

order of a lower court, is presumed to be correct, and all intendments and presumptions 

are indulged to support the order on matters as to which the record is silent. [Citation.]” 
6 

(Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 77, 88.) The presumption of 

correctness is particularly applicable when, as was the case here, defendants failed to 

request a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for the trial court’s 

ruling denying their motion to compel arbitration. (Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate 

Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 970-971 (Acquire II).) 

 “A party’s failure to request a statement of decision when one is available has two 

consequences. First, the party waives any objection to the trial court’s failure to make all 

findings necessary to support its decision. Second, the appellate court applies the 

doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings 

supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.] This doctrine ‘is a natural and logical 

corollary to three fundamental principles of appellate review: (1) a judgment is presumed 

correct; (2) all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of correctness; and 

(3) the appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record affirmatively proving 

error.’ [Citation.]” (Acquire II, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 970) Accordingly, if the 

record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the 

trial court must be affirmed. (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 

Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 (Gee).) 

 As we discuss, defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing any 

reversible error by the trial court because they failed to provide an adequate record 

demonstrating such error. 

II. Defendants fail to establish reversible error 

 Defendants contend the order denying their motion to compel arbitration must be 

reversed because (1) Hertz and Ryan had a statutory right to compel arbitration pursuant 

to Business and Professions Code section 6200; (2) Hertz, Ryan, and Partners had 

standing to invoke the arbitration clause in the May 2009 agreement; (3) the trial court 

improperly found they had waived the right to arbitrate; (4) the trial court’s failure to read 

their reply brief before the hearing was a violation of their due process rights; and (5) the 

trial court improperly applied an “all or nothing” rule for arbitration of the claims. 
7 

A. Statutory right to arbitration 

 Defendants did not invoke a statutory right to arbitration under Business and 

Professions Code section 6200 et seq. in the trial court below and they make no argument 

in their opening brief that they may do so for the first time on appeal. They accordingly 

forfeited the right to do so in this appeal. (Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 

Cal.App.4th 771, 798.) 

 B. Standing 

 Whether Hertz, Ryan, and Partners had standing to compel arbitration under the 

May 2009 agreement is an issue that was before the trial court. The standing issue was 

raised in email correspondence between the parties and the trial court stated that this 

correspondence was “a deciding factor” in its decision to deny the motion to compel 

arbitration. 

 The trial court could have determined that the defendants who were not signatories 

to the arbitration provision lacked standing to compel arbitration under that provision. 

(M & M Foods, Inc. v. Pacific American Fish Co., Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 554, 

561.) The record, however, contains no such finding by the trial court. Given the 

absence of any finding on standing to compel arbitration, defendants have established no 

reversible error based on standing. (Acquire II, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 970; Gee, 

supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416.) 

 C. Waiver 

 The record contains no finding by the trial court that defendants waived the right 

to arbitrate. The trial court’s statement at the April 25, 2013 hearing that “You all 

decided to not arbitrate” appears to be directed at both parties. The statement was made 

after defendants’ counsel argued that plaintiff’s alter ego claim could not be arbitrated 

under the Los Angeles County Bar Association rules and neither party responded to the 

court’s suggestion that they stipulate to arbitration. When defendants’ counsel responded 

that it was plaintiff and not defendants that had decided not to arbitrate, the trial court 

again asked the parties: “You all want to arbitrate?” Plaintiff’s counsel replied: “Only if 
8 

we arbitrate everything; otherwise, no. If we’re going to reserve an alter ego issue for 

trial after the arbitration, it makes sense just to keep the entire matter here.” 

 Given the absence of any express finding by the trial court that defendants waived 

the right to arbitrate, defendants have established no reversible error based on waiver.1 

(Acquire II, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 970; Gee, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416.) 

 D. Due process violation 

 Defendants claim the trial court’s failure to read their reply brief before oral 

argument was a violation of their due process rights. The reply brief included a copy of 

the Los Angeles County Bar Association rules, and defendants argue that the trial court’s 

failure to read those rules resulted in the court’s inability to determine the scope and 

applicability of the parties’ arbitration agreement. 

 The record discloses no due process violation. The trial court allowed both parties 

to present their arguments at the April 25, 2013 hearing. At the outset of the hearing, 

plaintiff’s counsel informed the trial court that the only issue in dispute was whether the 

alter ego claim against Partners would be included in any arbitration between the parties. 

Defendants argued that the Los Angeles County Bar Association rules do not allow 

arbitration of the alter ego claim -- the principal argument made in their reply brief in 

support of the motion to compel arbitration. Defendants were thus accorded the 

opportunity to be heard on the issue regarding arbitrability of the alter ego claim under 

the Los Angeles County Bar Association rules and the parties’ arbitration agreement. 

 1 There is substantial evidence to support an implied finding that Partners, a 

nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement who nevertheless moved to compel arbitration 

of all claims, subsequently decided against arbitrating the alter ego claim asserted against 

it. Defendants’ counsel insisted at the hearing that the alter ego claim could not be 

arbitrated and did not respond to the trial court’s suggestion that the parties stipulate to 

arbitration. 
9 

E. “All or nothing” rule for arbitration 

 Defendants contend the trial court mistakenly concluded arbitration could be 

ordered only if it encompassed all of plaintiffs’ claims, including the alter ego claim. 

They argue that there is no legal basis for the “all or nothing” rule the trial court imposed. 

 Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c) provides a legal basis for 

the trial court’s ruling. The statute applies when “[a] party to the arbitration agreement is 

also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out 

of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of 

conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. 

(c).) In such cases, the court has discretion to pursue one of several options, including 

denying arbitration so that all issues between all parties are resolved in the judicial 

proceeding. (Ibid.) 

 In the instant case, a party to the arbitration agreement (Forever), was also a party 

to litigation claims asserted against others (Partners, Hertz, and Ryan) that were not 

subject to the arbitration provision but that arose out of the same transaction or series of 

transactions. The trial court could thus have determined that there was a possibility of 

conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact, if the parties arbitrated some of the 

claims and proceeded with litigation as to the other claims. 

 Defendants argue that the record contains no ruling under Code of Civil Procedure 

section 1281.2 and no findings to support such a ruling. Their failure to request a 

statement of decision resulted in the forfeiture on appeal of any objection based on the 

absence of such findings or ruling. (Acquire II, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 971.) 

 Defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing any reversible error by the 

trial court. 
10 

DISPOSITION 

 The order denying the petition to compel arbitration is affirmed. Plaintiff is 

awarded its costs on appeal. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. 

 ____________________________, J. 

 CHAVEZ 

We concur: 

__________________________, P. J. 

BOREN 

__________________________, J. 

ASHMANN-GERST