Freile v. Lincecum CA1/3 filed 2/20/13 A

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: A135010

Case Date: 02/20/2013

Plaintiff: Freile

Defendant: Lincecum CA1/3 filed 2/20/13 Case Details

Preview:
Filed 2/20/13 Freile v. Lincecum CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

MINDY FREILE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIM LINCECUM, Defendant and Appellant. A135010 (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC-11-514877)

Defendant Tim Lincecum appeals from an order denying his motion to compel arbitration of a dispute with his former landlord and to stay the litigation pending arbitration. The trial court correctly ruled that the arbitration clause in the parties' rental agreement is void under Civil Code section 1953, subdivision (a)(4),1 so we affirm. BACKGROUND Lincecum rented an apartment from plaintiff Mindy Freile from May 2010 through February 2011. The lease permitted either party to submit disputes to binding arbitration. It specified that: "In the event a dispute arises between the parties concerning any provision of this contract, either party may submit such issue to binding arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association in San Francisco, California. . . . Any such arbitration proceedings and decisions shall be private and confidential, and both parties agree not to disclose any aspect thereof without the prior written consent of the other party. Either party may bring action at law or in equity to

1

Further statutory references are to the Civil Code.
1

enforce any such arbitration decision or award, including, without limitation, obtaining injunctive relief." Freile sued Lincecum for breach of contract, conversion, trespass, and other claims related to his occupancy. Lincecum moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the rental agreement. The trial court ruled that the arbitration provision was void under section 1953, subdivision (1)(4), and denied the motion. Lincecum filed this timely appeal. DISCUSSION Section 1953, subdivision (a) provides that "Any provision of a lease or rental agreement of a dwelling by which the lessee agrees to modify or waive any of the following rights shall be void as contrary to public policy: [

Download A135010.PDF