Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 25CHCV00190, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 25CHCV00190    Hearing Date: April 28, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

PETITION TO COMPEL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST ARBITRATION, SET AN ARBITRATION COMPLETION DATE, AND APPOINT A NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR

Motion filed: 1/17/25

MOVING PARTY: Claimants Haroutiun Boulanikian and Simona Ondrejkova

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to arbitrate, setting an arbitration completion date, and appointing a neutral arbitrator.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 8, 2024, in Agua Dulce, California.

On January 17, 2025, Claimants Haroutiun Boulanikian and Simona Ondrejkova (collectively, “Claimants”) filed both a Complaint for court assignment in connection with their underinsured motorist (UIM) claims and the instant Petition to Compel Underinsured Motorist Arbitration, Set an Arbitration Completion Date, and Appoint a Neutral Arbitrator (the “Petition”). Subsequently, Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Respondent” or “State Farm”) filed an Opposition on April 14, 2025, and Claimants filed a Reply on April 16, 2025.

ANALYSIS

“A court has the authority to compel compliance with a method for selecting an arbitrator.” (Maggio v. Windward Capital Management Co.¿(2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1213.) ¿ “If the court concludes the agreement to arbitrate is enforceable and the parties cannot agree on the procedure to appoint an arbitrator, the remedy is to be found in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.” (Lewis v. Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc.¿(1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1107.) 

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6:¿

“If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed. If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.¿

When a petition is made to the court to appoint a neutral arbitrator, the court shall nominate five persons from lists of persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration or obtained from a governmental agency concerned with arbitration or private disinterested association concerned with arbitration. The parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may within five days of receipt of notice of the nominees from the court jointly select the arbitrator whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees. If the parties fail to select an arbitrator within the five-day period, the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees.”¿ 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.6)

“That section … provides a statutory method for resolving breakdowns in the arbitrator selection process, and states in pertinent part that in the absence of an agreed method of appointing an arbitrator, ‘or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed ... the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.’” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.¿(1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 980 (Engalla).)

Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f) provides, in part, 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.”

A.    Petition to Compel Arbitration and Appoint Arbitrator

Claimant asserts that on January 2, 2025, they submitted a demand for UIM Arbitration, and requested State Farm to provide its list of preferred neutral arbitrators. (Chichyan Decl. Ex. “5.”) Claimants further assert that Respondent completely evaded and refused to engage in a strike list process for the selection of a neutral arbitrator. (Reply at p. 2.)

In response, State Farm argues that it has not refused arbitration, asserting instead that it has “expressly agreed to arbitrate” this UIM claim and was in the process of finding mutual agreement to an arbitrator. (Opp’n. at p. 2.) Specifically, State Farm presents evidence showing that on February 13, 2025, its counsel, Morris Chichyan (“Chichyan”), sent Claimants a proposed name for an arbitrator. (Sherp Decl. Ex. “2.”) Between February 13 and April 9, 2025, Respondent’s counsel and Claimants’ counsel engaged in several correspondence, via both email and telephone, exchanging several names of arbitrator; however, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on any specific one. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. “3.”)

State Farm contends that the Petition is defective under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, arguing that Claimants have failed to show Respondent’s “refus[al] to arbitrate,” as required by that statute. (Opp’n. at p. 2.)

The Court finds Respondent’s argument unpersuasive. Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.6 serve complementary but distinct purposes.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 applies when one party refuses to arbitrate the controversy – such as by denying the obligation to arbitrate, challenging the agreement’s validity, or failing to respond to a demand for arbitration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2 [“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[.]”])

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6, on the other hand, addresses procedural dispute “when delay in choosing arbitrators is result of reasonable and good faith disagreements between the parties, remedy for such delay is a petition to court to choose arbitrators under section 1281.6[.]” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 984.)

Here, the record reflects that Respondent has agreed to arbitrate and there is ample evidence that Respondent was diligent in seeking mutually agreeable arbitrator. Therefore, the current delay in arbitrator selection is procedural in nature and falls squarely within the scope of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 – not section 1281.2.

Moreover, Claimants brought the Petition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 and Insurance Code section 11580.2. The latter requires that any dispute concerning the insured’s entitlement to recover damages under a UIM policy be resolved by arbitration if the parties cannot agree. This statutory mandate reinforces the Court’s conclusion that arbitration is appropriate in this matter and supports the Court’s limited intervention to facilitate arbitrator selection, as expressly authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.  

Therefore, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6, the Court orders the parties to file a joint statement containing a proposed list of no fewer than five arbitrators within 10 days of this order. Upon receipt, the Court will select and nominate five individuals from the submitted list and provide notice of its nominations. The parties shall thereafter comply with the procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Claimants’ Petition as to the request to compel arbitration and for appointment of a neutral arbitrator.

The Court will set an Order to Show Cause (OSC) re: Arbitrator Selection to determine whether the parties have successfully agreed upon an arbitrator. If the parties reach an agreement -  whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees - the Court will vacate the OSC.

B.     Petition to Set an Arbitration Completion Date

Claimants request the Court set an arbitration completion date within 180 days of the hearing on this Petition.  (Mot. at p. 5.) Claimants argue that if the UIM claim is not timely resolved, they would suffer undue prejudice as the injured party. (Ibid.)

State Farm opposed this request, contending that it is premature and unwarranted due to the substantial amount of outstanding discovery that must be conducted prior to the arbitration. State Farm further asserts that it lacks basic discovery related to Claimants’ injuries and damages. (Opp’n. at p. 3.) Moreover, State Farm argues that prematurely setting an arbitration deadline would risk unnecessary effort and expense if the arbitration must later be continued due to incomplete discovery. (Opp’n. at p. 4.)

            The Court finds that the evidence submitted by Respondent establishes that the requested 180-day timeline is unreasonable. Claimants allege injuries that involve neurological, orthopedic, and neuropsychological conditions. (Shepard Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) These injuries necessitate multiple independent medical examinations, as State Farm asserts, to assess causation, severity, and permanence.

Furthermore, the discovery process remains in its early stages. Claimants served initial responses on March 28, 2025, and the record reflects the need for depositions and subpoenas for medical records from multiple treating providers. This outstanding discovery further complicates the timeline and supports the finding that arbitration cannot reasonably be completed within the requested 180-day period.

Forcing arbitration to proceed on an arbitrary and compressed timeline risks prejudicing Respondent’s ability to adequately prepare its case. The Court is mindful of Claimants’ interest in a timely resolution, but that interest must be balanced against Respondent’s right to adequate discovery.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Petition as to the request to set an arbitration completion deadline within 180 days.

To protect Claimants’ interest in avoiding undue delay, the Court grants leave to Claimants to file a renewed petition seeking a completion date should Respondent unreasonably delay the arbitration process.

CONCLUSION

The Petition filed by Claimants Haroutiun Boulanikian and Simona Ondrejkova’s Petition is GRANTED IN PART as to the request to compel arbitration and for appointment of a neutral arbitrator.

The Court orders the parties to file a joint statement containing a proposed list of no fewer than five arbitrators within 10 days of this order. Upon receipt, the Court will select and nominate five individuals from the submitted list and provide notice of its nominations. The parties shall thereafter comply with the procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.

The Court further sets an Order to Show Cause (OSC) re: Arbitrator Selection on 05/22/2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department F49. If the parties successfully agree upon a neutral arbitrator, whether or not the selected individual is among the Court’s nominees, the Court will vacate the OSC.

The Petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the request to set an arbitration completion deadline within 180 days. Claimants may renew this request should they later demonstrate unreasonable delay in the arbitration process.

Moving party to give notice.