Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22STCV24626, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24626    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Claimants Krishan Kumar Chaudry, Savita Chaudry, and Sahil Chaudry (collectively “Claimants”) have asserted an uninsured motorist claim with their insurer Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Respondent”). Claimants’ insurance policy with Respondent mandates the arbitration of such claims. Claimants now move the Court to compel a selection of an arbitrator pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.6, arguing the parties have been unable to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.6, where an arbitration agreement does not specify a method for appointment of an arbitrator, the parties may bring a petition to have the Court appoint the arbitrator. To do so, the Court must nominate five persons from lists of candidates supplied jointly by the parties, from governmental agencies concerned with arbitration, or from private disinterested arbitration associations. The parties then have five days within which to jointly select the arbitrator (which may be from a name not on the list), after which the Court must appoint an arbitrator from the five nominees. (C.C.P. § 1281.6.)

Analysis

The parties agree this dispute is subject to arbitration, and the arbitration agreement in question does not specify a method for appointment of an arbitrator. The Court has reviewed the list of names provided by the parties in Claimants’ moving papers and Respondent’s opposition and hereby nominates the following arbitrators pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.6:

1.                   Hon. Jaime Corral

2.                  Hon. Pat Schnegg

3.                  Hon. Andrew Kaufman

4.                  Hon. Christopher Warner

5.                  Hon. Michelle Rosenblatt

In selecting the above arbitrators, the Court rejects Claimants’ contention that Respondent should be limited to proposing names included on correspondence from July 2022. While Respondent’s prior counsel did nominate five names in July 2022, the parties subsequently engaged in numerous discussions regarding the selection of an arbitrator, with each side proposing new names and alternate selection methods. The Court finds no basis to prohibit Respondent from withdrawing the names proposed in July 2022 and amending its own nominees for the Court to select from.

The Court also notes Claimants objected to the inclusion of the Honorable Christopher Warner, Ret. from Respondent’s list of nominees on the basis that he is based in Orange County and the arbitration proceedings here must be venued in Los Angeles. However, his profile on Judicate West indicates he is “available Nationwide” to conduct arbitration proceedings even though he is based in Orange County. Accordingly, the selection of Judge Warner as an arbitrator would not prevent the arbitration from taking place in Los Angeles as required.

Conclusion

Claimants’ motion for selection of an arbitrator is GRANTED. The parties are directed to jointly notify the Court no later than February 21, 2023, as to whether they have been able to agree on an arbitrator. If the parties have not reached an agreement at that time, the Court will select an arbitrator from the list above pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1281.6.