Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV39869, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV39869    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 74

Dwayne J. Chomyk v. Christina Development Corporation

Plaintiff Dwayne J. Chomyk’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On October 16, 2020, Plaintiff Edwayne Chomyk (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Christina Development Corporation (Defendant) alleging wrongful termination under Labor Code section 1102.5, wrongful termination under Labor Code section 6310, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and fraud.

            On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for sanctions.

DISCUSSION 

            Plaintiff seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.98, subdivision (c) and 1281.99, subdivision (a).

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, subdivision (a), if the party who drafted an arbitration agreement fails to pay fees and costs while an employment arbitration proceeding is pending, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement and is in default of the arbitration. If the drafting party breaches the agreement or is in default, the employee may withdraw his or her claim from arbitration and proceed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.98, subd. (b)(1).) And if the employee withdraws his or her claim from arbitration, the employee may bring a motion to recover attorney’s fees and costs associated with the abandoned arbitration proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.98, subd. (c)(1).) Moreover, the court shall impose sanctions on the drafting party in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.98, subd. (c)(2).)

            On September 21, 2021, the court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in this action. But on May 9, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the stay in this action on the grounds that Defendant did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, subdivision (a). As a result, the court found that Plaintiff could exercise his right to withdraw from arbitration. Defendant thereafter appealed the court’s May 9 ruling, and the appeal is still pending. Because Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions depends on Plaintiff’s proper withdrawal of his claims from arbitration, a ruling on this matter before the Court of Appeal issues its decision would be premature.

CONCLUSION 

            The court continues this hearing to a later date.

            Plaintiff shall give notice.