HOLDINGS: -In light of the completed eviction, the Panel was not in a position to provide the relief sought via the appeal from the TRO Denial Order. Accordingly, the appeal in BAP No. CC-13-1345 was equitably moot; -The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the First Adversary Proceeding under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1334(c)(1) or when it entered the Abstention/Dismissal Order; -The dismissal of the Fourth Bankruptcy case was sufficient to support both the Abstention/Dismissal Order entered in the First Adversary Proceeding and the Remand Order entered in the Second Adversary Proceeding. Parties’ litigation lawyer Los Angeles appeal.
The Panel dismissed BAP No. CC-13-1345. It affirmed the orders appealed in BAP Nos. CC-14-1136 and CC-13-1358.
Defendant moved to compel arbitration of all claims, contending that the loan agreement that plaintiff entered into contained an “Arbitration Rider” which provided that any claim had to be resolved in arbitration. The court granted the motion to compel. The arbitration agreement encompassed the dispute at issue. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant acted inconsistently with a known right to arbitrate. Appling the Federal Arbitration Act, the court found that the parties’ dispute should be compelled to arbitration in accordance with the loan agreement.
Motion to compel arbitration granted.