Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/petition-to-compel-arbitration-and-reque-98675/
Timestamp: 2015-07-03 23:30:17
Document Index: 544838251

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1281', '§ 1281', '§ 1293', '§ 5', '§ 1280', '§ 1293', '§ 5', '§ 1280', '§1281', '§ 1284', '§ 1281', '§ 1293', 'art 2', '§ 1293']

Petition to Compel Arbitration and Request for Stay of Proceedings | LMIC v. Lorman | The Law Office of Mary F. Mock - JDSupra
Petition to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings under a lawyers professional liability insurance policy. Download PDF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS [prior firm redacted] Mary F. Mock (CA State Bar No. 249379) Attorneys for Defendant LAWYERS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT BRUCE M. LORMAN, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. LAWYERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Corporation, and Does 1-50, Defendants. Case No. SC099075 Complaint Filed: July 22, 2008 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF WBL IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: 11/04/08 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on November 4, 2008 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Department __ of the above-entitled Court, located at 9355 Burton Way, #300, Beverly Hills, CA, 90210, Defendant LAWYERS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“Defendant”) will petition the Court for an order compelling arbitration of all the matters embraced in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff BRUCE M. LORMAN (“Plaintiff”), for an order staying all proceedings in this matter pending completion of the arbitration, and for an award of costs incurred in bringing this Petition. This Petition is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 1281, § 1281.2, 1281.4, 1292.4, and § 1293.2, on the grounds that the professional liability insurance policy issued by Defendant to Plaintiffs requires arbitration of any dispute arising under the policy, including any “coverage” dispute. As this matter involves a coverage dispute arising under the insurance policy, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling arbitration, an order staying all proceedings in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS this matter, and an award of costs incurred by Defendant in bringing this Petition. This Petition is based upon this Notice, the attached Petition to Compel Arbitration, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and Declaration of WBL, and all exhibits thereto, the pleadings, files and records of the within action, and such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented to the Court at or before the hearing on this Petition. DATED: October 3, 2008 By: WBL & Mary F. Mock Attorneys for Defendant LAWYERS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION For its Petition to Compel Arbitration, Defendant LAWYERS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff Bruce M. Lorman (“Plaintiff’) was insured by Defendant under a Lawyers’ Professional Liability Insurance Policy, Policy No. LPDD05376 (“LMIC Policy”), for the period April 26, 2007 to April 26, 2008. [Declaration of WBL (“WBL Decl.”), ¶ 2 and Exhibit “A”; Complaint ¶ 7.] 2. Plaintiff does business in the County of Los Angeles, California. [Complaint, ¶ 1.] 3. The LMIC Policy was made and issued in the City of Burbank, County of Los Angeles, California. [WBL Decl. Exhibit “A”.] 4. On September 24, 2007, Plaintiff notified Defendant that he had “been the victim of an internet scam by a purported client.” Plaintiff reported that he “was retained as an attorney by a purported client to collect on accounts,” that he “received a check for $197,500 in purported collection of that client’s account,” that he deposited the check into his client trust account at Pacific Western Bank (“Bank”), that he instructed the Bank to wire transfer $192,500 to a bank in China pursuant to the purported client’s instructions, and that he subsequently learned that the check he had deposited was “phony.” Plaintiff stated that the Bank was demanding that he repay the $192,500 which had been wire transferred out of the account, and that it had frozen the account. [WBL Decl. ¶ 3 and Exhibit “B”; Complaint, ¶ 13.] 5. By letter to Plaintiff dated October 4, 2007, Defendant’s counsel advised Plaintiff that the LMIC Policy did not afford coverage to him for the Bank’s claim because that claim did not arise from Plaintiff’s “Professional Services” as that term is defined in the LMIC Policy, and that Defendant thus denied coverage for the claim. [WBL Decl. ¶ 4 and Exhibit “C.”] 6. In an October 9, 2007 letter to Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff requested that Defendant reconsider and reverse its denial of coverage. [WBL Decl. ¶ 5 and Exhibit “D.”] Defendant’s counsel responded to Plaintiff on October 16, 2007, further explaining why the Bank’s claim was not subject to coverage under the LMIC Policy and reiterating the denial of coverage. [WBL Decl. ¶ 9 and Exhibit “E.”] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 7. On October 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Bank and its employees in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. SC095841 (“Bank Lawsuit”), seeking damages in connection with the Bank’s deposit of the phony check and wire transfer of Plaintiff’s trust account funds. [Complaint, ¶ 10.] The Bank filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff on December 26, 2007, for breach of contract, breach of warranty of good title, open book account, and money paid out. [Complaint ¶ 11.] 8. On January 25, 2008, Plaintiff tendered the Bank’s Cross-Complaint to Defendant and requested coverage under the LMIC Policy for the Cross-Complaint. [WBL Decl. ¶ 6 and Exhibit “F.”] 9. On February 7, 2008, Defendant’s counsel advised Plaintiff that the LMIC Policy did not afford coverage to him for the Bank’s Cross-Complaint. [WBL Decl. ¶ 7 and Exhibit “G.”] 10. The next communication received by Defendant from Plaintiff was service of the instant lawsuit on September 4, 2008. [WBL Decl. ¶ 7.] In this lawsuit, Plaintiff contends that the LMIC Policy affords coverage to him for the Bank’s claim and Cross-Complaint, and he alleges causes of action against Defendant for “breach of contract,” “bad faith breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing” and “declaratory relief.” [Complaint.] 11. The LMIC Policy includes an arbitration provision which mandates arbitration of any coverage dispute, as follows: “In the event that a dispute arises between an insured and the Company with respect to (1) coverage; (2) liability for premiums, deductibles, or other amounts; or (3) any term or condition of the Policy, the matter shall be resolved by arbitration and such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of the California Arbitration Act, Sections 1280 through 1294.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. …” [WBL Decl. ¶ 8 and Exhibit “A,” § 5.6.] 12. By letter to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel dated September 11, 2008, Defendant’s counsel advised that it invoked its right to have the dispute framed by Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS submitted to arbitration, and asked that Plaintiff dismiss the Complaint, even if without prejudice, so that arbitration, as required under the LMIC Policy, could proceed. [WBL Decl., ¶ 9 and Exhibit “H.”] 13. Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s counsel by letter dated September 18, 2008. In that letter, Plaintiff argued that the arbitration provision of the LMIC Policy was not binding on him, and he refused to dismiss the Complaint so that an arbitration could proceed. [WBL Decl. ¶ 10 and Exhibit “I.”] 14. Defendant’s counsel responded to Plaintiff by letter dated September 30, 2008. That letter advised Plaintiff that Defendant would file this Petition to Compel Arbitration and, in connection with the same, would seek an award of costs for having to pursue what should be an unnecessary motion. [WBL Decl. ¶ 11 and Exhibit “J.”] WHEREFORE, Defendant prays: 1. That the Court order Plaintiff to arbitrate the dispute which is the subject of his Complaint and this Petition; 2. That the arbitration proceed under the terms of and pursuant to the arbitration provision set forth in the LMIC Policy and in accordance with the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1280 through 1294.2, inclusive; 3. That all proceedings in this matter be stayed pending completion of the arbitration; 4. That Defendant be awarded costs of $320.00 incurred in these proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1293.2 or as otherwise provided by statute or at law; and For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: October 3, 2008 By: WBL & Mary F. Mock Attorneys for Defendant LAWYERS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS I. INTRODUCTION This litigation arises out of an unfortunate, but not unknown, Internet scam to which Plaintiff Bruce M. Lorman (“Plaintiff’), an attorney, fell victim in September 2007. Plaintiff was solicited and retained via email by a purported Chinese corporation, Northlink Industrial Limited (“NIL”), to assist in collection of its accounts in the United States. Plaintiff transmitted a retainer agreement to NIL, and which reportedly was signed by an officer of NIL. NIL advised Plaintiff that he would received a check for $197,500.00, and that Plaintiff should deposit that check into his bank account and retain $5,000.00 for payment of Plaintiff’s fees, and that Plaintiff should then wire transfer the balance to a bank account in China. Plaintiff received the check on September 17, 2007 and deposited it in his client trust account at Pacific Western Bank (“Bank”) the same day. Plaintiff then instructed the Bank to wire transfer $192,500.00 to a bank account in China, and the Bank completed that wire transfer on September 18, 2007. On September 21, 2007, the Bank advised Plaintiff that the check he deposited was “phony,” and demanded that Plaintiff repay the $192,500.00 which had been wire-transferred out of the account. [WBL Decl. ¶ 3 and Exhibit “B.”] Plaintiff sought coverage from Defendant Lawyers’ Mutual Insurance Company (“Defendant”) under his professional liability insurance policy, Policy No. LPDD05376 (“LMIC Policy”) for the Bank’s claim against him. Defendant denied coverage, as the claim was based on Plaintiff’s depositing of a phony check into his account and wire transferring of funds out of the account, rather than on any “Professional Services” rendered by Plaintiff. [WBL Decl. ¶¶ 3-5 and Exhibits “B,” “C,” “D” and “E.”] Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Bank on October 29, 2007, in which he asserts that the Bank should not have sent the wire transfer unless and until the deposited check had cleared. On December 26, 2007, the Bank filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff, alleging that Plaintiff breached his Deposit Agreement by failing to repay the overdraft caused by the wire 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS transfer and the subsequent dishonoring of the deposited check. Plaintiff tendered the Bank’s Cross-Complaint to Defendant under the LMIC Policy, and Defendant again denied coverage to Plaintiff. As Defendant explained to Plaintiff, the Policy potentially affords coverage only for claims arising out of “Professional Services,” which term is defined in the Policy as “legal services performed for others,” and the Bank’s claim against Plaintiff was based on his depositing of a bad check, rather than on his rendition of legal services. [WBL Decl. ¶¶ 6-7 and Exhibits “F” and “G.”] Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s coverage determination, and he filed the instant lawsuit seeking to establish that the LMIC Policy affords coverage to him for the Bank’s claim. Upon being served with this lawsuit, Defendant pointed out to Plaintiff that the LMIC Policy requires that any coverage dispute be submitted to binding arbitration. Plaintiff refused to dismiss the lawsuit so his claim could be arbitrated, necessitating that Defendant file this Petition to Compel Arbitration. [WBL Decl. ¶¶ 9-11 and Exhibits “H,” “I’ and “J.”] As set forth below, in light of the express arbitration provision in the LMIC Policy, Plaintiff may not proceed with this lawsuit. Rather, all further judicial proceedings in this action must be stayed until an arbitration is conducted and an arbitration award is rendered. Further, as Plaintiff has deliberately failed and refused to comply with the arbitration provision of the LMIC Policy, Defendant should be awarded its costs in bringing this Motion. II. IN ACCORD WITH THE LMIC POLICY, THE COURT SHOULD ORDER THIS MATTER TO ARBITRATION A. Plaintiff’s Claim Is Subject to Binding Arbitration Where one of the parties to a contract containing an arbitration clause nonetheless initiates a civil action, the party seeking to enforce the arbitration clause may move to compel arbitration and, concurrently with that motion, obtain an order staying the pending litigation. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188, 192. The LMIC Policy clearly provides that coverage disputes arising under the LMIC Policy are subject to mandatory, binding arbitration: “In the event that a dispute arises between an insured and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Company with respect to (1) coverage; (2) liability for premiums, deductibles, or other amounts; or (3) any term or condition of the Policy, the matter shall be resolved by arbitration and such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of the California Arbitration Act, Sections 1280 through 1294.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. …” [WBL Decl., Exhibit “A” § 5.6.] The California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1280 -1294.2 (“CAA”), states: “A written agreement … to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2 requires the Court to enforce an arbitration provision where one party is refusing to arbitrate: “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy, and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists unless it determines that: (a) the right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement ….” (Emphasis added.) As numerous courts have emphasized, the use of “shall” makes this provision mandatory, not discretionary. The CAA reflects an established public policy favoring arbitration as an expeditious and efficient method of resolving disputes. Christensen v. Dewor Developments (1983) 33 Cal.3d 778, 782 (the court should “indulge every intendment to give effect to” an arbitration agreement); Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 816-817 (same). B. This Dispute Is Governed By The Arbitration Provision Of The LMIC Policy The controversy here – whether or not the LMIC Policy affords coverage to Plaintiff for the Bank’s claim against him – falls squarely within the scope of the arbitration provision of the LMIC Policy. And any doubt, though there is none here, about whether a claim falls within the scope of the arbitration provision must be resolved in favor of arbitration. Hayes Children Leasing Co. v. NCR Corp. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 775, 788 (“even if we found the arbitration clause to be ambiguous, [the court] would be compelled to resolve the ambiguity in favor of finding that the claims at issue are subject to arbitration”); Bos Material Handling, Inc. v. Crown Control Corps. (1983) 137 Cal.App.3d 99, 105 (“arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.”) Thus, the instant coverage dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant is subject in all respects to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the LMIC Policy and a strong public policy favoring arbitration. C. Plaintiff Is Obligated To Comply With The Arbitration Provision In The Policy Plaintiff is bound by the clear and conspicuous arbitration provision in the LMIC Policy. See, Hadland v. NN Investors Life Ins. Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1589 (insured cannot complain of policy provision even if he failed to read policy); Hackethal v. National Cas. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1102, 1111-1112 (“receipt of a policy and its acceptance by the insured without an objection binds the insured as well as the insurer and he cannot thereafter complain that he did not read it or know its terms.”). Plaintiff asserts in his September 18, 2008 correspondence that the arbitration provision is not binding and is “unenforceable and unconscionable under California law” because it “purports to have the ‘costs of arbitration borne equally by the parties or in such proportion as the arbitrator shall determine’,” and because it “purports to require that the arbitration take place in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Burbank, where the insurance company does business.” Neither objection is well-founded and, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, neither of these provisions causes the arbitration clause to be “unconscionable” or unenforceable.” Indeed, the CAA expressly endorses provisions requiring that each party pay its own arbitration costs: “Unless the arbitration agreement otherwise provides or the parties to the arbitration otherwise agree, each party to the arbitration shall pay his pro rata share of the expense and fees of the neutral arbitrator, together with other expenses of the arbitration incurred or approved by the neutral arbitrator, not including counsel fees or witness fees or other expenses incurred by a party for his own benefit.” Code of Civil Procedure § 1284.2. Further, there is nothing in the CAA stating that a forum selection clause in an arbitration provision causes the arbitration provision to be unconscionable or unenforceable. Thus, and given that the location of Plaintiff’s office, Santa Monica, is less than 25 miles from the arbitration locale, Burbank, there is no logic to Plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision is rendered unconscionable by the requirement that the arbitration be conducted in Burbank. III. THE COURT SHOULD STAY THE ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE ARBITRATION PROCEDURES Plaintiff’s lawsuit must be stayed pending completion of the arbitration mandated by the LMIC Policy. In this regard, Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4 provides: “If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceedings until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Emphasis added.) Like Section 1281.2, Section 1281.4 uses the word “shall” and is mandatory. Thus, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS if the Court orders arbitration of the instant dispute between the parties, all further judicial proceedings in this action must be stayed. A stay preserving the status quo pending the conclusion of the arbitration promotes the efficient settlement of disputes and eliminates multiplicity of actions. Fed’l Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1375 (“In the absence of a stay, the continuation of proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective.”) Defendant should not be forced to bear the burden and expense of litigation while participating in arbitration, and the Court should guard against the possibility of inconsistent results or rendering ineffective the ultimate arbitration award. These considerations warrant a mandatory stay of this action. IV. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER ITS COSTS IN BRINGING THIS PETITION Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1293.2, Defendant is entitled to an award of its costs in bringing this Petition: “The court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.” Due to Plaintiff’s refusal to submit his claim against Defendant to arbitration as required by the LMIC Policy, even after the arbitration provision was pointed out to him and his counsel by Defendant’s counsel, Defendant was forced to bring this Petition to Compel Arbitration. Thus, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1293.2, Defendant is entitled to recover its costs in seeking to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with the arbitration provision of the LMIC Policy. The costs incurred by Defendant in connection with this Petition are $320.00. [WBL Decl., ¶ 19.] V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully submits that this Court should order Plaintiff to arbitrate the claims asserted in his Complaint, and that all proceedings in this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS matter must be stayed pending completion of arbitration. Additionally, Defendant respectfully submits that the Court should award it costs in the amount of $320.00. DATED: October 3, 2008 Respectfully submitted, By: WBL & Mary F. Mock Attorneys for Defendant LAWYERS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Latest PostsCourt of Appeal Opinion Reversing Summary Judgment
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In the Alternative, For Summary Adjudication
Opposition to Defendant's Anti-SLAPP Motion
© The Law Office of Mary F. Mock | Attorney Advertising Refine your interests.
less- The Law Office of Mary F. Mock on: