When the Argument Runs Out, the Personal Attacks Begin

The Pointe Malibu's reply brief in support of its Motion to Compel Arbitration spends substantial space on the plaintiff's other business filings, an unrelated 2024 case, and this blog. What it does not do is meaningfully answer the legal questions the opposition raised.

On May 20, 2026, defendants James & Bentz, Inc., doing business as The Pointe Malibu Recovery Center, and its Executive Director Jennell Maze, LCSW, filed their reply in support of the pending Motion to Compel Arbitration in Hickman v. James & Bentz, Inc., et al., Case No. 25SMCV04669. The hearing is set for May 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department I of the Santa Monica Courthouse, before the Honorable Mark H. Epstein.

A reply brief is the moving party's last word before argument. It is where the legal argument is sharpened, where the case law is met, where the factual record is engaged. That is not what happened here.

What the Opposition Raised

The opposition raised four substantive legal challenges:

Scope. The arbitration clause is narrow and does not extend to the tort claims pleaded in the First Amended Complaint.

Waiver. Under Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 562, the moving defendants waived arbitration through months of judicial conduct inconsistent with an intent to enforce it.

Section 1281.2(c). Defendant Stacy Cohen, M.D., is not seeking arbitration, and her continued presence in the case creates a substantial risk of conflicting rulings on common issues, including mold causation.

Unconscionability. The clause is procedurally and substantively unconscionable, including because of the financial burden of arbitration costs under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83.

Those are the questions a reply brief was supposed to answer.

What the Reply Brief Did Instead

Significant portions of the reply are devoted to matters that have nothing to do with the arbitration clause.

Exhibit 9 is a Statement of Information filed by one of the plaintiff's businesses with the California Secretary of State in December 2025. Exhibit 10 is a 2024 motion to seal from an unrelated San Francisco Superior Court action involving that same business, a wedding contract dispute that, by the defense's own attached declaration, was never served and was dismissed with prejudice after a confidential settlement. Exhibit 8 is a PDF of pages from this blog.

The argument, as best as can be discerned, is that because the plaintiff operates a business and was once a plaintiff in an unrelated wedding contract dispute that settled before service, he could not have experienced procedural unconscionability when he checked into an addiction treatment facility in July 2025 seeking care.

The Pattern

A reply brief is a finite document.

Every page spent on the plaintiff's other business filings is a page not spent on the Quach waiver doctrine. Every paragraph addressing a 2024 wedding dispute that was never served is a paragraph not addressing the cost of arbitration under Armendariz. Every line characterizing this blog is a line not engaging with section 1281.2(c) and the risk of inconsistent rulings.

When a moving party with the last word on a motion chooses to spend that word on the opposing party's other litigation history and online presence rather than on the legal questions presented, that is itself a fact in the record. The Court will draw its own conclusions.

What Comes Next

The Court will hear argument on the Motion to Compel Arbitration on May 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department I of the Santa Monica Courthouse. Plaintiff intends to appear and oppose the motion.

DISCLOSURE AND LEGAL NOTICE

Behind The Pointe is published by Verdict Public Relations, LLC, a public relations company owned and operated by the plaintiff in Hickman v. James & Bentz, Inc., et al., Case No. 25SMCV04669 (Los Angeles Superior Court). All content on this site is published at the direction of, and reflects the editorial perspective of, the plaintiff in that action. This site represents one party's perspective on pending civil litigation. This is disclosed so that readers may evaluate the content with full knowledge of its source and make their own independent judgments.

Certain articles on this site reference or discuss press releases distributed by Verdict Public Relations, LLC through third-party newswire services, including Access Newswire. Where such press releases have appeared on media platforms (including but not limited to the Associated Press, USA Today, Yahoo Finance, and Digital Journal), those appearances reflect paid press release distribution through a newswire service, not independent editorial coverage or endorsement by those outlets. This distinction is disclosed for transparency.

Where this blog references court filings, pleadings, or other official records, such content constitutes a fair and true report of public judicial proceedings within the meaning of California Civil Code Section 47(d). All factual statements regarding the litigation are based on and limited to information contained in publicly filed court documents. Any factual claim that is attributed to a complaint, motion, opposition, or other court filing reflects the contents of that filing as publicly recorded and does not represent an adjudicated finding, judicial determination, or independently verified fact unless expressly stated otherwise.

All other content on this site, including analysis, commentary, characterization, and editorial framing, constitutes protected opinion on matters of public concern, including patient safety, regulatory oversight, and accountability in the addiction treatment industry. Such statements reflect the subjective views and interpretation of the publisher, are not assertions of independently established fact, and are intended to be understood as opinion and commentary within the meaning of the First Amendment and Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution. Readers are encouraged to review the underlying public records and form their own conclusions.

No statement on this site should be interpreted as a finding of wrongdoing, an adjudication of liability, or a determination of fault by any court or governmental body. All individuals and entities referenced herein are presumed innocent of any allegations unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction determines otherwise. The litigation referenced on this site is pending and unresolved. The claims asserted in the referenced court filings are allegations only.

Where this site references government reports, audits, regulatory data, or publicly available licensing records, such content constitutes reporting on matters of public concern and does not relate to any specific pending litigation unless expressly stated.

The publisher reserves all rights and defenses under the First Amendment, the California Constitution, and California's Anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 425.16), including the right to seek recovery of attorney's fees and costs in response to any action targeting the content of this blog. Any legal action arising from or relating to the content of this site shall be subject to these protections.

Nothing on this site constitutes legal, medical, or professional advice. Court filings referenced on this site are available through the Los Angeles Superior Court civil case access portal using Case No. 25SMCV04669. Readers are encouraged to review all underlying records independently before forming any conclusions.

For corrections or inquiries: pr@verdictpublicrelations.com