©®\IO\UIhMNr—l
`
`NNNNNNNNh—Ir—tr—p—Ap—Ar—IHr—tr—IH
`
`guamath—cwooanIAmNr—tc
`
`Michael R. Reynolds, Esq. (Bar No. 100126)
`Bryce Gray, Esq. (Bar No. 215 1 76)
`RANKIN, SPROAT, MIRES, REYNOLDS, SHUEY&M1NTZ
`A Professional Corporation
`1970 Broadway, Suite 1150
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: (5 10) 465-3922 — Fax: (510) 452-3006
`Email: Revnolds@rankinlaw.com; gmy®rankinlawcom
`
`FEEEfi
`ByCMKW
`SAN MATEO COUNW
`FEB 14' 2019
`
`.
`
`F
`
`DEPUTY
`
`EEK
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`ANDREA A. WOLOSCHUK, individually and
`doing business as MARIPOSA GARDENING AND DESIGN
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
`UNLIMITED JURISDICTION .
`
`ANDREW TONG,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`.
`
`vs.
`ANDREA A. WOLOSCHUK, individually
`and doingxbusifiess as MARIPOSA
`GARDENING AND DESIGN; JOHN
`GREENLEE, individually and doing business
`as GREENLEE & ASSOCIATES; and
`DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,
`
`WM
`
`Case Number: 18CIV03055
`
`NOTICE 0F ENTRY OF ORDER
`GRANTING PETITION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY COURT
`_/ w//
`PROCEEDINGS OF DEFENDANT ANDREA
`WOLOSCHUK, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA
`MARIPOSA GARDENING AND DESIGN
`, Q3326 0‘ Em mW
`Qch—Dafis
`
`/
`
`|‘\‘\§§§\‘\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
`
`TO PLAINTIFF(S) HEREIN AND HIS/HER/THEIR ATTORNEY(S) OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 4, 201 9, The Honorable Leland
`Davis, III entered and filed the Order Granting PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND
`STAY COURT PROCEEDINGS OF DEFENDANT ANDREA WOLOSCHUK,
`INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS MARIPOSA GARDENING AND DESIGN. A
`
`///
`
`///
`
`Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition t0 Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings
`of Defendant Andrea Woloschuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and Design
`
`1
`
`

`

`

`

`true and comect copy of said Order is attached as Exhibit “A” and is incorporated by reference in
`
`its entirety.
`
`Dated: February 8, 2019.
`
`RANKIN, SPROAT, MIRES,
`REYNOLDS, SHUEY & MINTZ
`
`YNOL
`
`By: MICHAE
`BRYCE GRAY
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`ANDREA A. WOLOSCHUK,
`individually and doing business as
`MARIPOSA GARDENING AND
`DESIGN
`
`\OWQQUIhDJNH
`
`NNNNNNNNNHHHHp—tl—twr—Ab—IH
`
`OOQQUIAUJNchwanI-RMNHO
`
`Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings
`of Defendant Andrea Woloschuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and Design
`
`2
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Michael R. Reynolds, Esq. (Bar No. 100126)
`Bryce Gray, Esq. (Bar No. 21 5 176)
`RANKIN, SPROAT, MIRES, REYNOLDS, SHUEY & MINT
`A Professional Corporation
`1970 Broadway, Suite 1150
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: (510) 465—3922 — Fax: {5 10) 452-3006
`Email: Reynolds@z:ankinlaw.com;
`
`.
`
`'
`
`4
`
`Eggggg
`EB 91.5 2019
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`ANDREA A. WOLOSCHUK, individually and
`doing business as MARIPOSA GARDENING AND DESIGN
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
`UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
`Case Number: 18CIV03 055
`
`ANDREW TONG,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`.
`
`W] ORDER GRANTING
`
`PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND STAY COURT PROCEEDINGS OF
`DEFENDANT ANDREA A. WOLOSCHUK,
`INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS
`AS MARIPOSAfiGARDENING AND DESIGN
`
`vs.
`ANDREA A. WOLOSCHUK, individually
`and doing business as MARIPOSA
`GARDENING AND DESIGN, and DOES l
`to 20, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`January 9, 2019
`Date:
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`LM
`Dept:
`/
`On January 8: 2019, this Court issued its tentative ruling on the Petition to
`Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings brought by Defendant ANDREA A.
`WOLOSCHUK, individually and doing business as MARIPOSA GARDENING AND DESIGN.
`The tentative ruling stated:
`
`Defendant Woloschuk’s motion to compel arbiuation and stay court proceedings is
`GRANTED. The present proceedings are hereby STAYED pending completion of the
`arbitration.
`
`Defendant Woloschuk has established the existence of an arbitration agreement between
`the parties and there is no basis to deny enforcement of the agreement under CCP §
`128 1 .2.
`
`[Proposed] Order Granting Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings of
`Defendant Andrea A. Woloschuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and Design
`
`I
`
`1
`
`WWQGUIQWNH
`
`H
`
`HHHv
`
`—I
`
`HI
`
`—i
`
`r—t
`
`O
`
`NNNNNHt
`
`-l
`
`

`

`I
`
`we. w 6-9» Tm Em H?" ._
`. :sz-ées‘vw ’a's'u'n m W:
`JAN 2 9 2019
`SUPERIOR COURT
`CIVIL DIVISION
`
`

`

`Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue
`of law or fact” under CCP § 1281 .2(c) Plaintiff claims, generally, that “The common
`' issues of law or fact mat raise the possibility of conflicting rulings here include but are
`not limited to liability, causation, damages, and apportionment of fault.” MPA, p. 5.
`Plaintiff, however, does not point to any specific facts or issues identified in the
`complaint that may result in conflicting rulings. Absent a more specific explanation of a
`possible conflict, the court cannot determine there is a genuine possibility of conflicting
`rulings. In this respect, the preSent matter is distinguishable from Lindemann v. Hume,
`204 Cal. App. 4th 556, 568 (2012), where the plaintiff argued there would be a possibility
`of conflicting rulings “because ‘we know already that there were some repairs that were
`made by the seller which were effected by the Lee Group before the house was sold, andI
`think they're not just going to say what did they know, there's going to be issues as to
`whether the work that was done by the Lee Group made the problem better, whether it
`could have worsened it, whether there are agency issues. Those are issues that would be
`involved in both cases .
`.”’
`
`.
`
`Further, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a possibility of conflicting rulings because
`Plaintiff has not shown that Greenlee would not agree to arbitration. Indeed, Greenlee has
`not appeared 1n this action and, as a result, has not filed any pleading responsive to the
`motion. See Bos Material Handling, Inc. v. Crown Controls Corp, 137 Cal. App 3d 99,
`' 112~1 3 (Ct. App. 1982) (reversing an order denying arbitration, in part, because “the
`record is silent as to whether or not any third parties would agree to submit to
`arbitration”).
`
`Accordingly, any claim that arbitration will result in conflicting rulings is based on mere
`speculation at this point.
`
`Even if the court determined that there was a genuine possibility of conflicting rulings,
`however, CCP § 1281 .2 provides that the court “may order arbitration among the parties
`who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action or special proceeding
`pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding.” Plaintiff does not address the impact
`of this provision. In any event, in light of Plaintiffs failure to identify any specific facts
`or issues set forth in the complaint that may result in conflicting rulings, the coult finds .
`that a stay of the present proceedings pending completion of arbitration is appropriate
`'pursuant to CCP § 1281.2.
`Plaintiff s remaining arguments are unpersuasive. Notably, in asserting that the parties’
`agreement is void, Plaintiff misrepresents the contents of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031.
`According to Plaintiff, Section 7031 provides that “Contracts for work not covered by an
`appropriate license are void, and subj ect the contractor to discipline and disgorgement.”
`MPA, p.7 . The statute, however, docs not indicate that the entirety of a contract entered
`by an unlicensed contractor is void or unenforceable, and Plaintiff has cited no authority
`to support this interpretation. With respect to Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Woloschuk
`waived the right to contractual arbitration by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s demand
`letter, Plaintiff provides no cogent argument or pertinent authority to support this claim.
`Finally, Plaintiff provides no argument in support of his assertion that Defendant
`Woloschuk terminated the parties’ agreement.
`[Proposed] Order Granting Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings of
`Defendant Andrea A. Woloschuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and Design
`
`2
`
`IO_H
`
`!AO
`
`J
`
`mqaU
`
`kc
`
`NNNNHHHHp—nI—IHHHH
`
`aggafimNt—cwmqamAuNHo
`
`

`

`\OOOQQUI&OJNH
`
`NTONNHHHI-II—AHHHHH
`
`aggggmNHowwqam-thI-ic
`
`If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter,
`counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for
`the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide
`written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by
`law and the California Rules of Court.
`
`No party contested the tentative ruling, and it became the Ordéf ofthe Court.
`4w 3
`Date: EB 04 2mg
`. F?
`, 2019
`HéN'ORABLE LELAND DAVIS, III
`
`_
`
`I
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`I
`
`~
`
`’ F
`
`-
`
`Approved as to form: v
`
`Date:
`
`. 2019
`
`Douglas K. Poulin, Esq.
`Attorney for Plaintiff, Andrew Tong
`
`[Proposed] Order Granting Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings of
`Defendant Andrea A. W0105chuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and'Deslgn
`
`3
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Michael R. Reynolds, Esq. (Bar No. 100126)
`Bryce Gray, Esq. (Bar No. 215176)
`RANKIN, SPROAT, MIRES, REYNOLDS, SHUEY & MINTZ
`A Professional Corporation
`1970 Broadway, Suite 1150
`Oakland, CA- 94612
`Tel: (510) 465-3922 — Fax: (510) 452-3006
`Email: Reynolds@rankinlaw.com: grav@rankinlaw.com
`
`\OWQQUIhWNP—I
`
`ANDREW TONG,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`ANDREA A. WOLOSCHUK, individually and
`doing business as MARIPOSA GARDENING AND DESIGN
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
`UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
`Case Number: 18CIV03055
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
`AND STAY COURT PROCEEDINGS OF
`DEFENDANT ANDREA A. WOLOSCHUK,
`INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS
`AS MARIPOSA GARDENING AND DESIGN
`
`NNNNNHHHu—u—nr—n—HHH
`
`aggg-thchooqcxmamNHo
`
`Defendants.
`
`January 9, 2019
`Date:
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`LM
`Dept:
`/
`On January 8, 2019, this Court issued its tentative ruling on the Petition to
`Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings brought by Defendant ANDREA A.
`WOLOSCHUK, individually and doing'business as MARIPOSA GARDENING AND DESIGN.
`The tentative ruling stated:
`
`Defendant Woloschuk’s motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings is
`GRANTED. The present proceedings are hereby STAYED pending completion of the
`arbitration.
`
`Defendant WOIOSchuk has established the existence of an arbitration agreement between
`the parties and there is no basis to deny enforcement of the agreement under CCP §
`1 28 1 .2.
`
`[Proposed] Order Granting Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings of
`Defendant Andrea A. Woloschuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and Design
`
`1
`
`.
`
`vs.
`ANDREA A. WOLOSCHUK, individually
`and doing business as MARIPOSA
`GARDENING AND DESIGN, and DOES 1
`to 20, inclusive,
`
`

`

`H
`
`OWQQUIAUJN
`
`NNNN'HHHHHHHHHH'
`
`Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate “a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue
`. of law orfac ” under CCP § 1281.2(c). Plaintiff claims, generally, that “The common
`issues of law or fact that raise the possibility of conflicting rulings here include but are
`not limited to liability, causation, damages, and apportionment of fault.” MPA, p.5.
`Plaintiff, however, does not point to any specific facts or issues identified in the
`complaint that may result in conflicting rulings. Absent a more specific explanation of a
`possible conflict, the court cannot determine there is a genuine possibility of conflicting
`rulings. In this respect, the present matter is distinguishable from Lindemann v. Hume,
`204 Cal. App. 4th 556, 568 (2012), where the plaintiff argued there would be a possibility
`of conflicting rulings “because ‘we know already that there were some repairs that were
`made by the seller which were effected by the Lee Group before the house was sold, andI
`think they're not just going to say what did they know, there's going to be issues as to
`whether the work that was done by the Lee Group made the problem better, whether it
`could have worsened it, whether there are agency issues. Those are issues that would be
`involved in both cases .
`.’”
`
`.
`
`Further, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a possibility of conflicting rulings because
`Plaintiff has not shown that GTeenlee would not agree to arbitration. Indeed, Greenlee has
`not appeared in this action and, as a result, has not filed any pleading responsive to the
`motion. See Bos Material Handling, Inc. v. Crown Controls Corp, 137 Cal. App. 3d 99,
`112—13 (Ct. App. 1982) (reversing an order denying arbitration, in part, because “the
`record is silent as to whether or not any third parties would agree to submit to
`arbitration”).
`
`Accordingly, any claim that arbitration will result in conflicting rulings is based on mere
`speculation at this point.
`
`Even if the court determined that there was a genuine possibility of conflicting rulings,
`however, CCP § 128 1 .2 provides that the court “may order arbitration among the parties
`who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action or special proceeding
`pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding.” Plaintiff does not address the impact
`of this provision. In any event, in light of Plaintiffs failure to identify any specific facts
`or issues set forth in the complaint that may result in conflicting rulings, the court finds
`that a stay of the present proceedings pending completion of arbitration is appropriate
`pursuant to CCP § 1281.2.
`Plaintiff’ s remaining arguments are unpersuasive. Notably, in asserting that the parties’
`agreement is void, Plaintiff misrepresents the contents of Bus. & Prof. Code § 703 l.
`According to Plaintiff, Section 7031 provides that “Contracts for work not covered by an
`appropriate license are void, and subj ect the contractor to discipline and disgorgement.”
`MPA, p.7. The statute, however, does not indicate that the entirety of a contract entered
`by an unlicensed contractor is void or unenforceable, and Plaintiff has cited no authority
`to support this interpretation. With respect to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Woloschuk
`waived the right to contractual arbitration by failing to respond to Plaintiffs demand
`letter, Plaintiff provides no cogent argument or pertinent authority to support this claim.
`Finally, Plaintifi' provides no argument in support of his assertion that Defendant
`Woloschuk terminated the parties’ agreement.
`[Proposed] Order Granting Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings of
`Defendant Andrea A. Woloschuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and Design
`
`2
`
`

`

`If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter,
`counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for
`the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide
`written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by
`law and the California Rules of Court.
`
`\OflQONUIAUJNb-l
`
`Date:
`
`No party contested the tentative ruling, and it became the Order of the Court.
`20 1 9
`
`HONORABLE LELAND DAVIS, III
`
`Approved as to form:
`
`Date:
`
`, 20 1 9
`
`Douglas K. Poulin, Esq.
`Attorney for Plaintiff, Andrew Tong
`
`NHHHI—tl—ar—IHv—IHH
`
`S’ot’xgfifimn‘dcwmqamamNHc
`
`NN
`
`[Proposed] Order Granting Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings of
`Defendant Andrea A. Wolaschuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and Design
`
`3
`
`

`

`\OWQGNUIAUJNH
`
`NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHb—t
`
`g4a)m&w-c\booqc\m-RMNHO
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`Ideclare thatI am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. Iam
`over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause. My employment address is
`1970 Broadway, Suite 1150, Oakland, California 94612.
`On February 11, 2019, I served copies of the attached document entitled:
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO COMPEL
`ARBITRATION AND STAY COURT PROCEEDINGS OF DEFENDANT ANDREA
`WOLOSCHUK, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA MARIPOSA GARDENING AND DESIGN
`on the interested parties in this action, by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a
`
`[
`
`]
`
`[
`
`[
`
`[
`
`]
`
`]
`
`]
`
`sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
`SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
`[XX] BY U.S. MAIL. I served the documents by enclosing them in an envelope and placing
`the envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I am
`readily familiar with this business’ practice for collecting and processing correspondence
`for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it
`is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service in a
`sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. [CCP §§1013, 1013a]
`BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. Electronic Filing and Service of Pleadings to all parties
`on the “Lexis-Nexis” file and serve service list. The transmission was reported complete,
`without error.
`BY FEDERAL EXPRESS. I caused such envelope to be deposited in a Federal Express
`depository at Oakland, California.
`BY PERSONAL SERVICE. I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
`offices of the addressee(s).
`BY FAX TRANSMISSION. Pursuant to Rule 2.306 of the California Rules of Court,I
`caused such document to be transmitted via facsimile to the offices of the addressee(s).
`[XX] STATE. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that
`the above is true and correct.
`FEDERAL. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
`Court at whose direction the service was made.
`
`[
`
`]
`
`Executed on February 11, 2019 at Oakland, California.
`
`Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings
`of Defendant Andrea Woloschuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and Design
`
`Shannon Pendleton
`
`

`

`SERVICE LIST
`Attorney for Plaintiff, ANDREW TONG
`Attorneys for Defendants, JOHN
`GREENLEE; GREENLEE &
`ASSOCIATES, LLC [erroneously sued as
`Timothy C. Williams, Esq.
`GREENLEE & ASSOCIATES
`Douglas K. Poulin, Esq.
`The Williams Firm
`George William Wolff, Esq.
`1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Suite 340
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Michael William Squeri, Esq.
`Tel: (925) 933-9800 — Fax: (925) 933-9810
`The Law Office of George W. Wolff
`P.O. Box 26749
`Email: twilliams@williams-firm.com
`San Francisco, CA 94126-6749
`dpoulin@wi11iams-firm.com
`Tel: (415) 788-1881 ——Fax: (415) 788-0880
`Email: George@wolfflaw.com;
`Michael@wolfflaw.com
`
`‘
`
`’
`
`©WQQUIAUJNH
`
`NNNNNNNNI—tr—tr—tp—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—tr—n
`
`guaUIAmNr-ncwooqchIAmNr-‘O
`
`Notice of Entry of Order Granting Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Court Proceedings
`of Defendant Andrea Woloschuk, Individually and dba Mariposa Gardening and Design
`
`