On April 02, 2021 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Kris M.D., Storkersen,
Kris Storkersen, M.D., Inc,
and
Cal Med Physicians And Surgeons, Inc,
Does 1-50,
Gnanadev M.D., Appannagari,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
omg pF N
wS
DAVID ROSENBERG, ESQ. (SBN 99105) SEU IES GH
AMY C. LEA, ESQ. (SBN 206442
CHAD EDWARDS, ESQ., (SBN 308909)
ROSENBERG, SHPALL & ZEIGEN, APLC
BERNARDO HEIGHTS CORPORATE CENTER SUPERIOR T OF CALIFORNIA
10815 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 310 “oN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
San Diego, California 92127
Telephone: (619) 232-1826 OCT 20 2021
Facsimile: (619) 232-1859
y
Attorney for Plaintiffs, KRIS STORKERSEN, M.D., INC. BY a=
and KRIS STORKERSEN, M.D., individually CESAR A. LEPE, DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 KRIS STORKERSEN, M.D., INC., a ) Case No: CIV SB 2107030
California professional medical corporation,
12 KRIS STORKERSEN, M.D., an individual, Assigned to: Hon. Thomas S. Garza
13
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF KRIS STORKERSEN,
14
M.D., INC. and KRIS STORKERSEN,
vs. M.D.’s OPPOSITION TO
15
DEFENDANTS CAL MED
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC.
CAL MED PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, and APPANNAGARI GNANADEV,
16
INC., a California professional medical M.D.’s MOTION TO COMPEL
corporation; APPANNAGARI GNANADEV, ARBITRATION
17
M.D., (aka, “Dev Gnanadev’”) an individual
Hearing Date: November 2, 2021
18 and DOES | through 50, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: S27-SBJC
19
Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 2, 2021
20 Trial Date: Not Set
21
22
Hi
23
‘if
24
fit
25 H/T
26 /I/
27 ‘Tl
28 fit
Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitratian
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
Il. ARGUMENT
A Defendants Have Waived the Right to Arbitration by Ignoring Plaintiffs’
Multiple Demands for Arbitration
10 Defendants’ Arguments Against Waiver Must Fail
11 (1) Plaintiff is Not Required to Initiate Arbitration with JAMS ............
12 (2) Plaintiffs Have Suffered Prejudice Through Defendants’ Refusal to
Arbitrate
13
14 Defendants’ Arbitration Agreement is Unconscionable ................--
15 (1) Purported Agreement to Arbitrate is Procedurally Unconscionable
16 (2) The Agreement is an Oppressive Contract of Adhesion
17 (3) The Agreement is Substantively Unconscionable 12
18 (4) The Arbitration Provision is Unable to be Administered 12
19 (5) The Arbitration Clause is Substantively Unconscionable Due to an
Unreasonable Provision Drastically Reducing Plaintiff's Time to Bring a Claim
20 for Arbitration While Allowing Defendant All Times Prescribed Under California
law. 13
21
(i) Unconscionable Provisions Cannot be Severed From the Arbitration
22 Agreement 14
23
Ill. CONCLUSION 15
24
25
26
27
28
Page -i-
Opposition to Motion to Compel
Document Filed Date
October 20, 2021
Case Filing Date
April 02, 2021
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
omg pF N wS DAVID ROSENBERG, ESQ. (SBN 99105) SEU IES GH AMY C. LEA, ESQ. (SBN 206442 CHAD EDWARDS, ESQ., (SBN 308909) ROSENBERG, SHPALL & ZEIGEN, APLC BERNARDO HEIGHTS CORPORATE CENTER SUPERIOR T OF CALIFORNIA 10815 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 310 “oN BERNARDINO DISTRICT San Diego, California 92127 Telephone: (619) 232-1826 OCT 20 2021 Facsimile: (619) 232-1859 y Attorney for Plaintiffs, KRIS STORKERSEN, M.D., INC. BY a= and KRIS STORKERSEN, M.D., individually CESAR A. LEPE, DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 KRIS STORKERSEN, M.D., INC., a ) Case No: CIV SB 2107030 California professional medical corporation, 12 KRIS STORKERSEN, M.D., an individual, Assigned to: Hon. Thomas S. Garza 13 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF KRIS STORKERSEN, 14 M.D., INC. and KRIS STORKERSEN, vs. M.D.’s OPPOSITION TO 15 DEFENDANTS CAL MED PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, INC. CAL MED PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS, and APPANNAGARI GNANADEV, 16 INC., a California professional medical M.D.’s MOTION TO COMPEL corporation; APPANNAGARI GNANADEV, ARBITRATION 17 M.D., (aka, “Dev Gnanadev’”) an individual Hearing Date: November 2, 2021 18 and DOES | through 50, inclusive, Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: S27-SBJC 19 Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 2, 2021 20 Trial Date: Not Set 21 22 Hi 23 ‘if 24 fit 25 H/T 26 /I/ 27 ‘Tl 28 fit Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitratian ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION Il. ARGUMENT A Defendants Have Waived the Right to Arbitration by Ignoring Plaintiffs’ Multiple Demands for Arbitration 10 Defendants’ Arguments Against Waiver Must Fail 11 (1) Plaintiff is Not Required to Initiate Arbitration with JAMS ............ 12 (2) Plaintiffs Have Suffered Prejudice Through Defendants’ Refusal to Arbitrate 13 14 Defendants’ Arbitration Agreement is Unconscionable ................-- 15 (1) Purported Agreement to Arbitrate is Procedurally Unconscionable 16 (2) The Agreement is an Oppressive Contract of Adhesion 17 (3) The Agreement is Substantively Unconscionable 12 18 (4) The Arbitration Provision is Unable to be Administered 12 19 (5) The Arbitration Clause is Substantively Unconscionable Due to an Unreasonable Provision Drastically Reducing Plaintiff's Time to Bring a Claim 20 for Arbitration While Allowing Defendant All Times Prescribed Under California law. 13 21 (i) Unconscionable Provisions Cannot be Severed From the Arbitration 22 Agreement 14 23 Ill. CONCLUSION 15 24 25 26 27 28 Page -i- Opposition to Motion to Compel