Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case Number: 23STCV08948, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV08948, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08948 Hearing Date: October 20, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Dinsmore vs. Shangri-La Construction, L.P., et. al., Case No. 23STCV08948

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff John Dinsmore (Plaintiff) moves for an order imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant Shangri-La Construction, L.P. (Defendant). The motion is granted. The Court awards sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,585.

“In an employment or consumer arbitration that requires . . . that the drafting party pay certain fees and costs during the pendency of an arbitration proceeding, if the fees or costs required to continue the arbitration proceeding are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration, and waives its right to compel the employee or consumer to proceed with that arbitration as a result of the material breach.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.98, subd. (a).)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction against a drafting party that materially breaches an arbitration agreement pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1281.97 or subdivision (a) of Section 1281.98, by ordering the drafting party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, incurred by the employee or consumer as a result of the material breach.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.91, subd. (a).)

On November 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed his arbitration claim with JAMS. Defendant was required to pay the $1,500 arbitration fee by January 27, 2023. (Silva-Guzman Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 5 [17].) Defendant did not pay the fee by that date, and so on February 10, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel requested closure of the case pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.97 (“If the drafting party materially breaches the arbitration agreement and is in default under subdivision (a), the employee or consumer may . . . Withdraw the claim from arbitration and proceed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.”). (Id., Ex. 5 [16].) Defense counsel responded that it was not aware of the fee and offered to pay it. (Id., Ex. 5 [15].) However, Plaintiff proceeded with his request to close the arbitration file, which JAMS granted. (Ibid.)

Defendant argues that the motion should be denied, or the amount paid be limited to $1,500, because it inadvertently failed to pay the arbitration fee. However, the fact that Defendant’s failure to pay the fee was inadvertent is immaterial to Plaintiff’s entitlement to sanctions: “Under the plain language of [CCP § 1281.97], the triggering event is nothing more than nonpayment of fees within the 30-day period—the statute specifies no other required findings, such as whether the nonpayment was deliberate or inadvertent, or whether the delay prejudiced the nondrafting party.” (Espinoza v. Superior Court (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 761, 776.)

Plaintiff requests a monetary sanction of $2,585 for fees and costs associated with his arbitration claim, based on an hourly rate of $437, for 3 hours to submit the claim to arbitration and 2 hours to prepare this motion, plus the JAMS filing fee of $400. (Silva-Guzman Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.) The requested sanctions are granted. The Court does not award additional sanctions related to the reply since Plaintiff failed to include a request for an estimated amount to prepare the reply brief in the notice of motion. Furthermore, the amount requested for the reply is exorbitant.