Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV21580, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21580    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: 28

Petitioner alleges that Respondent refuses to arbitrate to hear and resolve the dispute. Petitioner also offers a list of arbitrators to oversee arbitration, and requests the Court compel arbitration to occur in 60 days.

Petitioner states he mailed a demand to arbitrate, with a return receipt, on or about August 16, 2022. This does not match with Respondent’s requirements to demand arbitration—Respondent’s agreement requires a written demand for arbitration by certified mail addressed to Respondent. Petitioner’s letter was sent to Respondent’s counsel’s office and was addressed as ‘Dear Sir/Madam”. There is no indication that Respondent has refused to arbitrate the matter. Rather, it seems Petitioner has still not complied with the requirements to compel arbitration.

Regardless, Respondent has suggested parties engage in discovery prior to engaging an arbitrator and has provided a list of arbitrators to Petitioner, outside of court. The Court agrees—requiring arbitration to be set in 60 days from a list of arbitrators is premature, at the time. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner Daniel Shadman’s Motion for Order Appointing a Neutral Arbitrator and 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.