Kerr IP Group LLC v. Arcmatic Integrated Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 04/14/10 GRANTING 2 Motion to Compel Arbitration; defendants are directed to proceed to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the parties' agreement within 30 days; this action is STAYED pending arbitration. (Williams, D)

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
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---KERR IP GROUP, LLC, a Nevada limited liability corporation, Plaintiff, v. ARCMATIC INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, ARCMATIC WELDING SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, WILLIAM BONG, an individual, Defendants. ----oo0oo---This matter is before the court on plaintiff Kerr IP Group LLC's ("plaintiff") motion to compel arbitration pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2.1 (Docket #4.) As

NO. CIV. S-10-42 FCD/JFM MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

alleged in plaintiff's petition to compel arbitration, filed January 6, 2010 (Docket #2), on February 8, 2001, plaintiff

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

entered into a contract with defendants Arcmatic Integrated Systems, Inc., Arcmatic Welding Systems, Inc. and William Bong ("defendants") to provide defendants legal and patent services. (Docket #2 at ¶ 8.) The parties' contract was subsequently

amended in 2004 and 2006 but in each form, the contract contained an arbitration clause pursuant to Section 1281 et seq. ¶s 8-9.) (Id. at

That clause provided that any dispute between the

parties arising from the terms of their agreement be resolved through binding arbitration governed by Section 1281 et seq. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The parties' relationship ended in April 2007. ¶ 11.) (Id. at

At that time, plaintiff alleges defendants owed plaintiff (Id. at ¶ 14.) Beginning in March

$114,000.00 for its services.

2007 and continuing through February 2009, plaintiff requested that defendants pay their outstanding bill or arbitrate the dispute. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff asserts defendants have

refused to proceed with arbitration, and by the instant action, plaintiffs seek to compel defendants' participation. On February 17 and 20, 2010, defendants were served with the petition to compel arbitration (Docket #s 10-12); however, they did not respond to the instant motion and have not otherwise appeared in the action. The court construes their failure to E.D.

respond as a non-opposition to the petition and motion. Cal. L.R. 230(c).

Section 1281.2 provides, in pertinent part, that "the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists." Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2. 2 Plaintiff

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

has demonstrated that such an agreement exists in this case. As such, the court GRANTS plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration. Defendants are directed to proceed to arbitration,

pursuant to the terms of the parties' agreement, within 30 days of the date of this Order. the parties' arbitration. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 14, 2010 This action is HEREBY stayed pending

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3