Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV00178, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00178    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Khachatryan v. Naylor, Case No. 22SMCV00178
Hearing Date December 6, 2022
Supplemental Briefing Re: Plaintiff’s Petition to Compel Arbitration

On November 2, 2022, the court issued a tentative ruling granting plaintiff Khachatryan’s motion to compel arbitration, finding no prejudice, no unreasonable delay and no conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. Defendant Naylor requested a continuance to brief a just-published case, Davis v. Shiekh Shoes, LLC No. A161961, 2022 WL 1654189. The court has reviewed the supplemental briefing and rules as follows.

The Davis court found waiver of the right to arbitrate cannot be conditioned on a showing of prejudice. Id. at *7. Unreasonable delay and actions inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate are sufficient to show waiver, even in the absence of prejudice. Id. 

Unlike in Davis, this court’s conclusion that Khachatryan retained the right to arbitrate was not solely based on an absence of prejudice. While the court found no prejudice to Naylor, it also found no unreasonable delay and no action inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate by Khachatryan. 11/2/2022 minute order pgs. 2-3. Naylor’s supplemental brief argues against those findings, arguing Khachatryan’s seven-month delay in seeking leave to arbitrate lacked justification and she waived her right to arbitrate by initiating litigation. 

These arguments are outside the scope of the court’s leave to provide further briefing. The purpose of the supplemental briefs was to apply Davis, not to relitigate issues which were already decided. Lack of prejudice was not the sole basis for the court’s prior tentative decision to compel arbitration. Davis does not compel a different outcome. GRANTED.