Judge Audra Mori, Case 22STCV22002 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV22002, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22002 Hearing Date: January 11, 2023 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JONATHAN POULDAR,

Petitioner(s),

vs.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,

Respondent(s).

)

CASE NO: 22STCV22002

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION TO INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

January 11, 2023

On July 7, 2022, Petitioner Jonathan Pouldar (“Petitioner”) initiated this action through a petition to compel arbitration against Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Respondent”) in connection with underinsured and uninsured motorist claims.

On September 2, 2022, the Court heard and granted Petitioner’s petition to compel arbitration. In relevant part, the Court set an Order to Show Cause Re: Mediator Selection (the “OSC”) for September 16, 2022. The ruling and selection of the arbitrator were to constitute the final disposition of this action, which was filed and commenced only as a petition to compel arbitration. (Min. Order, Sept. 2, 2022.) On September 16, 2022, the parties appeared at the OSC and represented that a mediator had been selected. However, following the OSC, Petitioner filed the instant motion to transfer the action to an Independent Calendar court as a complicated personal injury action.

First and foremost, Petitioner failed to file a memorandum in support of the motion. “A party filing a motion … must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion … is not meritorious and cause for its denial …” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a).) Petitioner provides no authority or facts, such as through a declaration, in support of the requested relief.

Furthermore, the lack of a memorandum is further compounded by the fact that this matter was filed as a petition compel arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim only, the selection of the arbitrator at the OSC constituting the final disposition of this action. No legal authority is provided suggesting that the action can now be converted into a civil action or transferred by this Court to an Independent Calendar court. Importantly, no authority is provided with the motion establishing that the Court has authority to hear and rule on this motion, or on the pending Informal Discovery Conference or discovery motions filed by the parties, following the granting of the petition to compel arbitration through which this matter was initiated.[1]

Based on the foregoing, the motion to transfer this action is denied. The denial is without prejudice to Petitioner re-filing a motion addressing the above defects and issues.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 11^th day of January 2023

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The ruling at the OSC constituted the final disposition of this action, except as to limited jurisdiction only over any subsequent petition to confirm the arbitration award. (See Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 515, 533, citing CCP § 1292.6.) The Court did not retain jurisdiction over unrelated discovery matters or other issues, and neither Petitioner nor Respondent have filed a petition or application to commence discovery in an uninsured motorist proceeding. (See Ins.C. §11580.2(f); see also Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 927-28.)