Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV21580, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21580    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: 28

Petitioner Daniel Shadman’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On July 5, 2022, Petitioner Daniel Shadman (“Petitioner”) filed this action against Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company dba State Farm (“Respondent”) as a Petition to Appoint a Neutral Arbitrator and to Compel Arbitration to be heard on August 25, 2022. On August 12, 2022, Respondent filed a response. On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for January 2, 2024.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Petitioner requests the Court compel parties to arbitrate and to appoint a neutral arbitrator.

Respondent requests the Court deny the motion and vacate the trial date.

LEGAL STANDARD

A petition to compel arbitration must allege both (1) a “written agreement to arbitrate” the controversy, and (2) that a party to that agreement “refuses to arbitrate” the controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) The Court shall grant the petition unless the petitioner waived the right to compel arbitration, or other grounds exist for rescission of the agreement. (Id.) 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1290.4, subdivision (b) requires a petition to compel arbitration under § 1281.2 to be served on the parties as provided in their arbitration agreement or, if no method was agreed to, in the same manner required for service of summons, if the party to be served has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision. (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928.)

Waiver of the right to arbitrate is assessed through a number of factors, including: (1) whether the party’s actions are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; (2) whether “the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked” and the parties “were well into preparation of a lawsuit” before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate; (3) whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay; (4) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of the proceedings; (5) “whether important intervening steps [e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration] had taken place”; and (6) whether the delay “affected, misled, or prejudiced” the opposing party. (St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacificCare of California (2003) 41 Cal. 4 th 1187, 1196.)

DISCUSSION

Petitioner has not complied with the basic requirements for compelling arbitration. Petitioner must show a written agreement to arbitrate and a refusal to arbitrate from respondent—Petitioner’s claim does not indicate that Respondent has refused to arbitrate. Rather, Petitioner states that parties are unable to agree on an arbitrator to hear the dispute. In addition, any petition to compel arbitration must be served via the method provided in the arbitration agreement. According to the agreement, any request to arbitrate must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested; Petitioner’s motion was sent via email. As such, the Court denies the motion.

The Court will not, however, vacate the trial date. An opposition to a Motion to Compel Arbitration is the wrong avenue to bring said request.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner Daniel Shadman’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.