Opinion ID: 1196210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Public Policy Expressly Favors Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements.

Text: The majority correctly observes that California's public policy strongly favors enforcement of arbitration agreements. (Maj. opn., ante, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 339, 988 P.2d at p. 72.) Through enactment of a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating private arbitration ..., the Legislature has expressed a `strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution.' [Citations.] ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183, 832 P.2d 899 ( Moncharsh ).) More than 80 years ago, we explained that [t]he policy of the law in recognizing arbitration agreements and in providing by statute for their enforcement is to encourage persons who wish to avoid delays incident to a civil action to obtain an adjustment of their differences by a tribunal of their own choosing. ( Utah Const. Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co. (1916) 174 Cal. 156, 159, 162 P. 631.) Thus, California law, like federal law, establishes a presumption in favor of arbitrability. ( Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903 ( Engalla ).) The Legislature established this statutory presumption to overcome earlier judicial hostility to arbitration agreements. ( Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 830, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366, 982 P.2d 229 ( Vandenberg ).) Perhaps the clearest and most unequivocal expression of this public policy favoring arbitration appears in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281. It declares that [a] written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. This section establishes the fundamental policy of California's arbitration scheme: that arbitration agreements will be enforced in accordance with their terms.  ( Vandenberg, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 836, fn. 10, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366, 982 P.2d 229, original italics.) To implement this policy, Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 directs that, on petition, a court shall order arbitration if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that one of only three specified exceptions applies: (1) the petitioner has waived the right to compel arbitration; (2) grounds exist for revoking the agreement; or (3) a party to the agreement is also a party to a pending legal proceeding with a third party that arises out of the same transaction, and a possibility exists of conflicting rulings on common legal or factual issues. Of course, the Legislature is free to establish additional exceptions to this statutory command. (Cf. Shearson, supra, 482 U.S. at p. 226, 107 S.Ct. 2332 [FAA's statutory mandate may be overridden by a contrary congressional command].) The question before us, then, is not whether we think arbitration of CLRA claims is a bad idea, but whether the Legislature has established an additional exception to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281 and 1281.2 that precludes arbitration of CLRA claims, either in whole or in part. Moreover, in light of our strong public policy favoring arbitration and the statutes expressly reflecting that public policy, the burden of showing this intent should be on the party opposing arbitration. ( Shearson, supra, 482 U.S. at p. 227, 107 S.Ct. 2332.) I conclude that plaintiffs have not met, and cannot meet, this burden.