Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCP00075, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCP00075    Hearing Date: September 28, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Corson, et al., v. Widjaja, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCP00075

MOTION:                  (Continued) Motion to Appoint Arbitrator

HEARING DATE:   9/28/2023

Legal Standard

            Owners of an easement or the land to which it is attached must maintain and repair it. (Civ. Code. § 845(a).) If there is more than one owner, the costs are shared by agreement or proportionately to the use by each. (Civ. Code § 845(b).) If any owner refuses to perform, or fails after demand in writing to pay the owner's proportion of the cost, an action to recover that owner's share of the cost, or for specific performance or contribution, may be brought by the other owners. (Civ. Code § 845(c); see Healy v. Onstott (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 612, 617 [discussing general guidelines to determine contributions among co-owners of road easement under former version of statute].) The action must be filed in the superior court of the county in which the easement is located. (Civ. Code § 845(c)(1)-(3).)

            The action shall be subject to judicial arbitration pursuant to CCP section 1141.10 et seq. (Civ. Code § 845(c)(2); see Whitson v. Goudeseune (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 445, 449 [an owner may apply to the superior court for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator to apportion costs].) In judicial arbitration proceedings, relatively small cases—unlimited civil cases where the amount in controversy does not exceed $50,000 for each plaintiff—are subject to mandatory diversion for nonbinding arbitration. (Mercury Ins. Group v. Superior Court (1998) 19 Cal.4th 332, 343; CCP § 1141.11 [establishing criteria for cases subject to judicial arbitration, including the $50,000.00 cap].) Judicial arbitration may be viewed as an aid to settlement of litigation by giving the parties an arbitrator's neutral view of all the issues in a case, including damages and costs. (Stanley v. Superior Court (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 460, 471.) If no party requests a trial de novo after the arbitration, the decision of the arbitrator becomes final and binding. (Id. at 465.) CRC Rule 3.810 et seq. defines the rules and procedures for judicial arbitration.

Analysis

This petition arises out of the alleged duty of all the parties to share in the costs of repairs to a certain Private Roadway, owned by Petitioners Thomas and Susan Corson, and Respondents Ananthan Thangavel, Vincent Colin, Lena Colin, Wesley Widjaja, and Azita Razi Bakhshayandeh. Petitioners and Respondents have easements for ingress and egress. (Pet. ¶¶ 2-13.) Petitioners have made a good-faith effort to obtain the participation of Respondents, and each of them, in the necessary repairs to the Private Roadway but without success (Pet. ¶¶ 19-21.) Petitioners thus request appointment of an impartial arbitrator in accordance with California Civil Code § 845 to determine the appropriate scope of repairs and apportion the costs of the repairs to the Private Roadway.

On June 1, 2023, the Court heard this petition.  As set forth in the Court’s minute order, Petitioners failed to produce evidence that the amount in controversy did not exceed $50,000.00 as to any petitioner, or a stipulation from the parties consenting to judicial arbitration. (CRC Rule 3.811(a)(4); Rule 3.812(a).)  Further, Petitioners had not served all Respondents subject to this claim. Petitioners have only provided proofs of service as to Respondents Vincent and Lena Colin.  There is no update as to the unserved Respondents Thangavel, Widjaja, or Bakhshayandeh. The Court requires jurisdiction over these Respondents before it could order judicial arbitration.

            For these reasons, the Court will continue the application.  Petitioners are ordered to provide the Court with this requested information five court days before the next hearing.