Jones v. Law Offices of Joseph Farzam

Filed 8/17/06 Jones v. Law Offices of Joseph Farzam CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Theresa Sanchez-Gordon, Judge. Affirmed.

Rima Jones, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

____________________________

SUMMARY

Appellant Rima Jones appeals from an order denying her motion to vacate an arbitration award. We conclude appellant failed to provide a record establishing reversible error.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The appellate record consists solely of a clerk's transcript, which does not contain a copy of an original or amended complaint. As best as can be determined from appellant's statements in her appellate brief and in documents contained in the clerks' transcript, appellant sued respondent in this action to recover money she paid respondent to represent her in a prior action against L.A. Fitness, Inc. and Body of Change, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. VC035923). Appellant apparently filed the prior action in propria persona, seeking damages for personal injury, false advertising, fraud and other alleged wrongs.^[1] After defendants L.A. Fitness, Inc. and Body of Change, Inc. apparently filed motions for summary judgment, appellant retained respondent to file opposition to those motions. The minute order reflecting the trial court's ruling upon the summary judgment motions indicates that Joseph Farzam appeared as counsel for appellant.^[2] Appellant repeatedly asserts in her appellate brief that respondent did not file any opposition to those motions. The court granted summary judgment in favor of L.A. Fitness, Inc. The record does not reflect the ruling upon the motion brought by Body of Change, Inc.

The record does not establish the nature of the claims asserted in the present action. Appellant insists, however, that this action involved no legal malpractice claim. Based upon appellant's arguments on appeal and in the trial court, it may be inferred that she alleged respondent violated her civil rights, defrauded her, coerced payment, took her money even though he knew her case had no merit, and made her sign a contract that was too long and difficult to understand.

Although appellant's statements imply that the parties had a written fee agreement, the agreement is not in the record. It apparently required arbitration of some or all disputes. Respondent sought to compel arbitration, and the trial court granted his motion. The arbitration award is also not part of the record, but appellant's subsequent actions indicate the award favored respondent. Appellant sought to shorten time for a motion to vacate the arbitration award. The court denied her application and dismissed the action. Appellant moved to vacate the arbitration award and for a new trial. She also appealed. The court denied the motions.

DISCUSSION

Appellant first contends the trial court erred by ordering arbitration because the case had been pending for nine months and respondent had only appeared once. Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.7 specifically authorizes filing a petition to compel arbitration in lieu of filing an answer. Respondent was therefore entitled to seek arbitration upon his first appearance. With respect to the delay of nine months, the record on appeal is simply insufficient to establish the court's error in ordering arbitration. Because the record does not include the arbitration agreement, proof of service of process, or respondent's motion to compel arbitration, appellant has failed to establish that respondent forfeited his right to compel arbitration through unreasonable delay or delay exceeding a contractual condition. (Spear v. California State Auto. Assn. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1035, 1043.) Appellant bears the burden of showing reversible error by providing an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) This she failed to do, and she has therefore failed to show that the court erred by ordering the parties to arbitrate pursuant to their written agreement. Appellant further contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion to vacate the arbitration award. That motion asserted that the contract (presumably the written contract between the parties that provided for arbitration) was illegal because it was induced by fraud or undue influence and because respondent knew appellant's case was meritless, but nonetheless took the case and her money.^[3] She further argued the contract was against public policy. Appellant's motion also alleged the arbitrator was corrupt, failed to disclose â€