Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00012108-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 15, 2024

03/15/2024  02:30:00 PM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00012108-CU-BT-CTL CALDWELL VS IDENTITY INTELLIGENCE GROUP [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court will hear from the parties regarding its comments set forth below.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1294, subdivision (a), applies in this case, and therefore proceedings were not automatically stayed when Defendant perfected its appeal to the court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. '[T]he FAA does not apply until the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement is established under state law principles involving formation, revocation and enforcement of contracts generally.' (Cione v. Foresters Equity Services, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 625, 634.) Here, the court denied Defendant's motion because Defendant failed to establish it entered an enforceable agreement with any of the plaintiffs; thus, the FAA does not apply.

Moreover, even if the FAA was applicable, state procedural rules like section 1294(a) have been found to govern so long as they do not defeat the rights granted by Congress. (Muao v. Grosvenor Properties (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091-92.) In Federal cases, the automatic stay of an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is not a right granted by Congress; rather, it is a rule arising from Federal case law. (Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (2023) 599 U.S. 736, 744.) However, the court is not entirely persuaded it should not exercise its discretion to stay this case pending Defendant's appeal. Although the court disagrees its offhand comments at the hearing on Defendant's motion are sufficient grounds to construe Defendant's appeal as entirely good faith, the court recognizes that whether the arbitration provision is enforceable is central to whether Plaintiffs may proceed with their class claims. The court also has no reason to doubt Defendant's representation that Plaintiff Stone is the only potential class member who exercised his or her right to opt out of the arbitration provision.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089676  54