petition raises defense in California

2024If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement . . . that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense.” ( Rosenthal, supra, at p. 413 .) 9.

2021Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [“If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement — either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation … that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense”]) and Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 [“a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense”] citing Rosenthal, at p. 413. 11 It simil

2021Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [“If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement — either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation … that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense”]) and Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 [“a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense”] citing Rosenthal, at p. 413. 11 It simil

2021Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [“If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement — either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation … that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense”]) and Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 [“a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense”] citing Rosenthal, at p. 413. 11 It simil

2013If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement—either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation [citation]—that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 413.) The high court reiterated these procedures in Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951 , 972 and noted, “[i]n these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other d

2013If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement—either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation [citation]—that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 413.) The high court reiterated these procedures in Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951 , 972 and noted, “[i]n these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other d

2022Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 ; accord, Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236 .) We review an order denying a motion to compel arbitration based on findings of fact for substantial evidence.

2022Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 ; accord, Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236 .) We review an order denying a motion to compel arbitration based on findings of fact for substantial evidence.

2017Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 620 , 622, 119 Cal.Rptr. 536 ; see § 1281.2.) If that preliminary question requires the resolution of factual issues, then the court must resolve such issues in the course of the hearing on the petition. " 'Ordinarily, we review a denial of a petition to compel arbitration for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] However, where the trial court's denial of a petition to arbitrate presents a pure question of law, we review the order de novo.' " ( Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534 , 541, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 .) If the superior court's decision

2017Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 620 , 622, 119 Cal.Rptr. 536 ; see § 1281.2.) If that preliminary question requires the resolution of factual issues, then the court must resolve such issues in the course of the hearing on the petition. " 'Ordinarily, we review a denial of a petition to compel arbitration for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] However, where the trial court's denial of a petition to arbitrate presents a pure question of law, we review the order de novo.' " ( Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534 , 541, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 .) If the superior court's decision

2013(Cheng-Canindin v. Renaissance Hotel Associates (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 676, 683, fn. 3 ; Chan v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 632 , 645 & fn. 6.) On appeal, “[w]e do not review the trial court‟s reasoning, but rather its ruling.

2013(Cheng-Canindin v. Renaissance Hotel Associates (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 676, 683, fn. 3 ; Chan v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 632 , 645 & fn. 6.) On appeal, “[w]e do not review the trial court‟s reasoning, but rather its ruling.

1996If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement—either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation (see § 1281.2, subds. (a), (b))—that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense, (Strauch v. Eyring, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 186 .) Defendants urge us to hold a party opposing arbitration must show fraud not only by a preponderance of evidence, but by clear and convincing evidence.

1996If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement — either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation (see § 1281.2 , subds. (a), (b)) — that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense. ( Strauch v. Eyring, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 186 .) Defendants urge us to hold a party opposing arbitration must show fraud not only by a preponderance of evidence, but by clear and convincing evidence.

2021Agnes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1195 ; accord, Cox v. Bonni (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 287, 303 (Cox); Gloster v. Sonic Automotive, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 438, 447 (Gloster).) Generally, a determination of waiver is a question of fact, and we will affirm the trial court’s finding if supported by substantial evidence.

2021Agnes, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1195 ; accord, Cox v. Bonni (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 287, 303 (Cox); Gloster v. Sonic Automotive, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 438, 447 (Gloster).) Generally, a determination of waiver is a question of fact, and we will affirm the trial court’s finding if supported by substantial evidence.

2020Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 761 (Hotels Nevada).) According to Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin.

2017Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 620 , 622, 119 Cal.Rptr. 536 ; see § 1281.2.) If that preliminary question requires the resolution of factual issues, then the court must resolve such issues in the course of the hearing on the petition. " 'Ordinarily, we review a denial of a petition to compel arbitration for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] However, where the trial court's denial of a petition to arbitrate presents a pure question of law, we review the order de novo.' " ( Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534 , 541, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 .) If the superior court's decision

2017Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 620 , 622, 119 Cal.Rptr. 536 ; see § 1281.2.) If that preliminary question requires the resolution of factual issues, then the court must resolve such issues in the course of the hearing on the petition. " 'Ordinarily, we review a denial of a petition to compel arbitration for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] However, where the trial court's denial of a petition to arbitrate presents a pure question of law, we review the order de novo.' " ( Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534 , 541, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 .) If the superior court's decision

2017Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 620 , 622, 119 Cal.Rptr. 536 ; see § 1281.2.) If that preliminary question requires the resolution of factual issues, then the court must resolve such issues in the course of the hearing on the petition. " 'Ordinarily, we review a denial of a petition to compel arbitration for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] However, where the trial court's denial of a petition to arbitrate presents a pure question of law, we review the order de novo.' " ( Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534 , 541, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 .) If the superior court's decision

2017Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 620 , 622, 119 Cal.Rptr. 536 ; see § 1281.2.) If that preliminary question requires the resolution of factual issues, then the court must resolve such issues in the course of the hearing on the petition. " 'Ordinarily, we review a denial of a petition to compel arbitration for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] However, where the trial court's denial of a petition to arbitrate presents a pure question of law, we review the order de novo.' " ( Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 534 , 541, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 .) If the superior court's decision

2012We held as much in Clark , explaining that “the petitioner . . . bears the initial burden of alleging the facts on which he relies to explain and justify delay and/or a successive petition.” (In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 798, fn. 35.) Although Clark did not involve claims barred by rules other than those involving timeliness and successiveness, the principle is the same: If a petition raises a claim that according to controlling legal authority is procedurally improper, the petition must disclose that fact and forthrightly address why the court should nevertheless consider the claim.

2010Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 , 926 P.2d 1061 ]; accord, Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843 , 938 P.2d 903 ]; Olvera v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 447, 453 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 65 ].) “Petitions to compel arbitration are resolved by a summary procedure that allows the parties to submit declarations and other documentary testimony and, at the trial court’s discretion, to provide oral testimony.” (Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 581, 586 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ].) The

2010Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 , 926 P.2d 1061 ]; accord, Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843 , 938 P.2d 903 ]; Olvera v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 447, 453 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 65 ].) “Petitions to compel arbitration are resolved by a summary procedure that allows the parties to submit declarations and other documentary testimony and, at the trial court’s discretion, to provide oral testimony.” (Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 581, 586 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ].) The

2010Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 , 926 P.2d 1061 ]; accord, Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843 , 938 P.2d 903 ]; Olvera v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 447, 453 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 65 ].) “Petitions to compel arbitration are resolved by a summary procedure that allows the parties to submit declarations and other documentary testimony and, at the trial court’s discretion, to provide oral testimony.” (Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 581, 586 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ].) The

2010Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 , 926 P.2d 1061 ]; accord, Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843 , 938 P.2d 903 ]; Olvera v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 447, 453 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 65 ].) “Petitions to compel arbitration are resolved by a summary procedure that allows the parties to submit declarations and other documentary testimony and, at the trial court’s discretion, to provide oral testimony.” (Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 581, 586 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 ].) The

2006If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement—either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation (see § 1281.2, subds. (a), (b))—that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense.” (Rosenthal, supra, at p. 413 .) According to Rosenthal , facts relevant to enforcement of the arbitration agreement must be determined “ ‘in the manner . . . provided by law for *762 the . . . hearing of motions.’ ” (Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 413 , quoti

2006If the party opposing the petition raises a defense to enforcement—either fraud in the execution voiding the agreement, or a statutory defense of waiver or revocation (see § 1281.2, subds. (a), (b))—that party bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to the defense.” (Rosenthal, supra, at p. 413 .) According to Rosenthal , facts relevant to enforcement of the arbitration agreement must be determined “ ‘in the manner . . . provided by law for *762 the . . . hearing of motions.’ ” (Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 413 , quoti

2006In Owens v. Intertec Design, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 72, 74-75 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 840 ], the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration because the trial court made the decision in “an evidentiary vacuum,” as “[pjlaintiff presented no evidence, by declaration or otherwise, in support of the ‘facts’ underlying his arguments in opposition to the petition.” Similarly, in Strauch v. Eyring (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 181, 183 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 747 ], the court unequivocally “h[e]ld that a petition to compel arbitration may not be denied on the ground of fraud alleged in a

2006In Owens v. Intertec Design, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 72, 74-75 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 840 ], the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration because the trial court made the decision in “an evidentiary vacuum,” as “[pjlaintiff presented no evidence, by declaration or otherwise, in support of the ‘facts’ underlying his arguments in opposition to the petition.” Similarly, in Strauch v. Eyring (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 181, 183 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 747 ], the court unequivocally “h[e]ld that a petition to compel arbitration may not be denied on the ground of fraud alleged in a