Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV11088, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11088    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to vacate is DENIED.

On 3/23/2021, Plaintiff Carlos Sosa (Plaintiff) filed suit against Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., and Prime Healthcare Centinela (Defendant), alleging: (1) disability discrimination; (2) California Family Right Act Retaliation; (3) wrongful termination (Labor Code § 6409.6); (5) wrongful termination (Labor Code § 246.5 & 248.2); and (6) wrongful termination (Labor Code § 1102.5).

            On 11/10/2021, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

On 5/12/2022, after Defendants failed to pay arbitrator fees, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration with the drafting party paying all reasonable attorney fees and costs related to the arbitration.

Now, Defendant moves to vacate the 5/12/2022 order, arguing the Court lacked the jurisdiction to issue the order.

Discussion

            Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s 5/12/2022 order was issued without jurisdiction because “[a]s reflected by the Court docket and records, on November 10, 2021, the Court issued its order compelling arbitration and staying the entire action pending binding arbitration. The docket reflects that there was no order lifting or vacating the stay ever issued in this case. The docket also reflects that there was no notice or order made by the arbitrator terminating the arbitration proceedings ever submitted to the Court. There was never any request to, or order made restoring the Court’s jurisdiction.” (Motion, 2: 5-10.)

            As a preliminary matter, Defendants opposed the 5/12/2022 motion, and did not raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction there.

            Setting this aside, the Court concludes that it possessed jurisdiction to issue the 5/12/2022 order.

CCP section 1281.97 provides: (b) If the drafting party materially breaches the arbitration agreement and is in default under subdivision (a), the employee or consumer may do either of the following:

(1) Withdraw the claim from arbitration and proceed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction;

 (2) Compel arbitration in which the drafting party shall pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to the arbitration.

            As such, CCP section 1281.97 expressly provides the Court with the power to either withdraw a claim from arbitration if there has been a material breach, or alternatively, to compel arbitration with the drafting party paying reasonable attorney fees and costs. Case law demonstrates that Courts have the jurisdiction to determine whether a material breach under the statute has occurred, and issue an accompanying remedy. (See e.g. De Leon v. Juanita’s Foods (2022) Cal.Rptr.3d, 3, noting that the trial court did not err by declining to consider additional factors aside from its late payment in determining the existence of a material breach.) Clearly, if the Court possesses jurisdiction to withdraw a claim it previously ordered to be arbitrated pursuant to subdivision (b)(1) , the Court similarly possesses the jurisdiction to compel arbitration to continue with the drafting party paying reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to (b)(2).

            Tellingly, Defendants do not cite any case wherein the Court concluded that it was beyond the Court’s jurisdiction to order arbitration pursuant to CCP section 1281.97, subdivision (b)(2). Moreover, the cases cited by Defendants to show that the Court may not order the payment of attorney fees pursuant to this statute were decided between 1988-2001, and thus predate CCP section 1281.97-98 which only became effective in January 2020.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to vacate is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January     , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.