Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2022-01292393, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Mariam Bishara

Petition for Writ

Petitioner Mariam Bishara “Petition for Writ of Mandate” is denied.

Petitioner filed this petition in the Superior Court challenging a 10/14/22 Order in case no. 2021-01235883. She asks this court to direct another Superior Court Judge to overturn an Order granting arbitration of Petitioner’s underling Complaint.

Typically, quasi-legislative or ministerial acts are subject to review by ordinary mandate under CCP § 1085. Weiss v City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 CA5th 194, 204; State Comp. Ins. Fund v WCAB (2016) 248 CA4th 349, 370.) Quasi-judicial acts are subject to review by administrative mandamus under CCP § 1094.5. Beverly Hills Unified Sch. Dist. v Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth. (2015) 241 CA4th 627, 670–671.

Orders compelling arbitration are interlocutory and not appealable. (International Film Investors v. Arbitration Tribunal of Directors Guild (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 699, 703; cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 1294, subd. (a) [orders denying arbitration are appealable].) “The preferred procedure is to proceed by arbitration and attack confirmation on appeal.” (Atlas Plastering, Inc. v. Superior Court (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 63, 67.)

While writ relief is rarely warranted, writ review of orders compelling arbitration is appropriate in some circumstances. (See e.g. Zembsch v. Superior Court (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 153, 160; see Atlas, supra, 72 Cal.App.3d at pp. 67-68.)

Here, the underling case involves neither a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial act – it is a judicial act ordering arbitration of a Civil Unlimited case. It is improper to seek a writ from the Superior Court as to the Order issued on 10.14.22 in case no. 2021-01235883.

Petitioner is ordered to serve notice.