arrow left
arrow right
  • **Complex** Flores -v- FH II, LLC Print Complex Civil Unlimited  document preview
  • **Complex** Flores -v- FH II, LLC Print Complex Civil Unlimited  document preview
  • **Complex** Flores -v- FH II, LLC Print Complex Civil Unlimited  document preview
  • **Complex** Flores -v- FH II, LLC Print Complex Civil Unlimited  document preview
						
                                

Preview

F Michael D. Turner, State Bar No. 126455 Sg’gufllon COIUIETEFQAUFQRNM "WOF SAN BERNARDINO Derek J. Scott, State Bar No. 276878 KASDAN TURNER THOMSON BOOTH LLP 18100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 750 MAY 1 2 2023 92612 Irvine, California Telephone: (949) 851-9000; Fax: (949) 833-9455 ‘ mturner@kasdancdlaw.com . dscott@kasdancdlaW'.001n ‘ M' m. ‘ put, FAX Attorneys for Plaintiffs BY FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ORIGINAL MICHAEL FLORES, an individual, et al, V CASE NO. CIVSB 21 12297 Assigned for all purposes t0: Plaintiffs, Hon. David Cohn, Dept. S-26 vs. NOTICE OF RULING GRANTING FH LLC, a California limited liability II, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL company d/b/a Frontier Communities; and ARBITRATION AND STAY CASE VVVVVVVVVVVVVV DOES 1-600, inclusive, DefendantS- Action Filed: April 30, 2021 Trial Date: None TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: The parties in the above captioned matter previously stipulated that the Court’s decision in Ellis, et al. v. FH II, LLC, et al. CIVSBZI 01 096 (“Ellis Case”) regarding whether the Court or the arbitrator should make the determination as t0 the consolidation 0r separation 0f proceedings in arbitration shall be binding on the arbitration of the claims herein. A true and correct copy 0f the stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration and stay case pursuant to written pre-dispute arbitration agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant FH II, LLC d/b/a Frontier Communities (“FHII”) came on for hearing before the above captioned Court in the Ellis Case on May 11, 2023. After oral argument, the Court adopted its tentative 1 NOTICE OF RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY CASE m c cm 4a 1%?“ 9x00 V W2 52 g. $04 06 r9 750 % a 9’ 225a go a o 19%, x 6 ’ x. ‘ \.«