Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV28000, Date: 2024-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28000    Hearing Date: December 11, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 25, 2024, petitioner Kyairah Young (“Petitioner”) petitioned the Court for an order to compel respondent Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company (“Respondent”) to participate in arbitration, and for appointment of a neutral presiding arbitrator.

            Petitioner alleges that on August 25, 2023, an underinsured motorist struck an Uber that Petitioner had hired. (10-25-24 Pet., ¶ 2.) On February 8, 2024, Petitioner served Respondent with a Demand for Arbitration. (Id., ¶ 4.) According to the October 25, 2024 petition, “[t]here is now a dispute between the instant parties, specifically in that the parties are unable to agree on if [sic] Petitioner served BLUE HILL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.” (Id., ¶ 3.)

            On November 15, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition identically captioned a “Petition to Compel Arbitration and for Appointment of a Neutral Arbitrator in U.M. Arbitration”, reserving a hearing for this date. The November 15, 2024 is substantially identical to the October 25, 2024 petition, except that it also alleges Petitioner has attempted to meet and confer regarding arbitration and Respondent has refused. (11-15-24 Pet., ¶ 6.) The November 15, 2024 petition also newly requests that the Court order arbitration be completed within ninety (90) days. (Id., 3:15.)

On November 6, 2024 – nine days before filing of her second petition – Petitioner filed a proof of service indicating she effected personal service of a “Petition to Compel Arbitration and for Appointment of a Neutral Arbitrator in U.M. Arbitration” on Respondent on November 4, 2024. (See 11-06-2024 POS.)

            Neither petition is accompanied by any supporting declaration, and neither is verified.

            Respondent filed no opposition, and Petitioner no reply.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California law, every uninsured motorist insurance policy or endorsement “shall provide that the determination as to whether the insured shall be legally entitled to recover damages, and if so entitled, the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured and the insurer or, in the event of disagreement, by arbitration.” (Ins. Code, ¶ 11580.2(f).)

A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

DISCUSSION

            The hearing on the petition is denied without prejudice for two reasons.

First: Petitioner’s Proof of Service refers to the documents she served by their captions. Because of Petitioner’s identical captioning of her two filings, it is unclear whether Petitioner served her October or November petition on Respondent. No separate proof of service is attached to the November 15, 2024 filing, which is the one associated with this hearing. The Court will not proceed in the absence of an opposition where service has not been established, particularly because the latter petition requests certain relief not requested in the former.

            Second, there are no facts before the Court that entitle Petitioner to the relief she seeks. She has not filed any supporting declaration satisfying Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, governing petitions to compel arbitration, or Insurance Code section 11580.2(f), governing uninsured motorist arbitration. Section 11580.2(f), in particular, contains an express requirement that Petitioner submit a declaration under penalty of perjury regarding workers’ compensation benefits.

CONCLUSION

Petition to compel arbitration is DENIED without prejudice.