Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case 22STCV12762 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV12762, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12762 Hearing Date: October 5, 2022 Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Defendants Weinstock Manion, a Law Corporation, and Blake A. Rummel’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceeding

Defendants Weinstock Manion, a Law Corporation, and Blake A. Rummel move to compel plaintiffs Brian W. Corman and Roger M. Corman to arbitrate this dispute.

Compelling Arbitration

The parties agreed to arbitrate this dispute. “A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (CCP § 1281.) There is a “strong public policy in favor of arbitration.” (Bigler v. Harker School (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 727, 735.)

The parties’ legal services agreement provides:

10. Dispute Resolution. If there is any controversy, dispute or claim (a “dispute”) arising out of, in connection with, or in relation to the interpretation, performance, or breach of this Legal Services Agreement, at your request or the request of our firm, the dispute will be submitted to non-binding mediation.

If a dispute cannot be resolved by mediation, then any such dispute shall be resolved, at your request or the request or our firm, by arbitration conducted in Los Angeles, California, and judgment upon any award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered by any state or federal court having jurisdiction. The arbitrator shall be a retired California judge unless both you and our firm later agree on a different arbitrator. This agreement to arbitrate shall be valid, enforceable and irrevocable and shall be governed by the then-existing rules found in the California Code of Civil Procedure.

(Complaint, Ex. 1, p. 4.)

Plaintiffs argue this motion is premature because the parties have not fulfilled mediation, which is a precondition to arbitration. “[C]ourts presume that the parties intend arbitrators, not courts, to decide disputes about the meaning and application of particular procedural preconditions for the use of arbitration.” (BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina (2014) 572 U.S. 25, 34; accord Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (2002) 537 U.S. 79, 84.) Though the agreement provides for “non-binding mediation” before arbitration (Comp., Ex. 1, p. 4), the arbitrator must decide whether the parties must mediate this dispute before arbitration can proceed.

Plaintiffs also argue the arbitration provision is too vague to be enforceable. Though the provision may have some gaps about the arbitration proceeding, it is sufficiently certain because it provides that it “shall be governed by the then-existing rules found in the California Code of Civil Procedure.” (Comp., Ex. 1, p. 4.) The California Arbitration Act fills any gaps. It provides a method of appointing an arbitrator (CCP § 1281.6), the requirement of a neutral arbitrator (CCP § 1282), the conduct of the arbitration hearing (§ 1282.2), the right to discovery (§§ 1282.6, 1283, 1283.05), the manner of issuing an award (§§ 1283.4-1283.8).

Under the parties’ agreement, defendants have the right to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ dispute.

Stay

Defendants seek to stay this action pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding. Such a stay is mandatory under CCP § 1281.4.

Defendants also move to stay the order compelling arbitration by at least six months or pending the resolution of the underlying cases in which Weinstock Manion represented plaintiffs. “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)

Defendants argue that a stay is appropriate because plaintiffs must “establish that but for the alleged malpractice, settlement of the underlying lawsuit would have resulted in a better outcome.” (Filbin v. Fitzgerald (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 154, 166.) “To win a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff must prove damages to a legal certainty, not to a mere probability. [Citation.] Thus, a plaintiff who alleges an inadequate settlement in the underlying action must prove that, if not for the malpractice, she would certainly have received more money in settlement or at trial.” (Slovensky v. Friedman (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1528.)

The court declines to exercise its discretion to stay the order compelling arbitration. The arbitrator should decide whether to stay the proceeding. In addition, arbitration is meant to be an “expeditious, and efficient alternative means of dispute resolution.” (Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 831.) Staying this order could undermine the efficiency of arbitration.

Disposition

The motion is granted. Plaintiffs Brian W. Corman and Roger M. Corman are ordered to arbitrate the causes of action alleged in their complaint. The court hereby stays this entire action until the conclusion of arbitration.