Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV03408, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03408, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03408 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: C

KIM MCMULLEN et al. v. ALL TIME TRANSPORTATION et al.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV03408

HEARING: 8/26/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Kaiser Permanente Inc.’s Motion to Stay Action Pending Binding Arbitration is GRANTED. All proceedings in this case are stayed pending completion of arbitration.

Moving Party to give notice.

Background

In a Complaint filed October 23, 2023, Plaintiff KIM MCMULLEN alleges that on or about November 1, 2022, Defendants KAISER PERMANENTE, INC., PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., KASIER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. (“Kaiser”) and Defendant ALL TIME TRANSPORTATION INC. (“All Time”) were transporting McMullen to a Kaiser medical appointment when she was “caused to fall and drop” and sustained injuries. Plaintiff TRINA MAGEE, who was accompanying McMullen on the trip, was also injured Plaintiffs sue for negligence and professional negligence.

On February 1, 2024, Kaiser filed the instant Motion to Stay Action Pending Binding Arbitration pursuant to CCP § 1281.4. Kaiser contends that a stay of the entire action is required because binding arbitration is currently pending between McMullen and Kaiser pursuant to McMullen’s arbitration agreement as a Kaiser member. Both this lawsuit and the arbitration arise out of the same incident.

Legal Standard

CCP § 1281.4 states in relevant part, “If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”

Discussion

The issue presented here is whether the entire litigation should be stayed while some, but not all, of the parties are proceeding with binding arbitration of their claims.

On August 6, 2024, pursuant to a stipulation between McMullen and Kaiser, the Court signed an Order to Stay State Court Matter between McMullen and the Kaiser entities only. The stipulation does not apply to McMullen’s claims against the other defendants, including All Time, and it does not apply Plaintiff Trina Magee.

In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff Trina Magee argues the stay should not be granted because Magee is not a Kaiser member; Plaintiffs and All Time have no arbitration agreement; Magee would be prejudiced by waiving her right to a jury trial based on an arbitration agreement she did not sign; it is more efficient to allow the parties to conduct discovery in the civil case and then determine whether parts of the case should be adjudicated through arbitration.

As Kaiser points out, the instant motion does not seek to compel Magee to arbitrate her claims; it seeks only to stay her claims pending arbitration between McMullen and Kaiser. The Court determines that the requirements for mandatory stay under CCP § 1281.4 are satisfied in this case. The issue in the arbitration – whether and to what extent Kaiser is liable for injuries sustained by McCullen on November 1, 2022 – is an issue in the present litigation, and Kaiser, a party in both matters, has requested a stay of the present litigation pending completion of the arbitration. Under the terms of the statute, nothing more is required to stay this lawsuit. (Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4^th 1146, 1153 (“A single overlapping issue is sufficient to require imposition of a stay [under CCP § 1281.4]”.)

This conclusion is consistent with the purpose of the statute. “The purpose of the statutory stay pending arbitration is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved.” (Aronow v. Superior Court (2022) 76 Cal.App.5^th 865, 873.)

Accordingly, the motion to stay the entire action pending completion of arbitration is GRANTED.