Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2022-00032517-CU-PT-CTL, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 22, 2024

02/23/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Petitions - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00032517-CU-PT-CTL INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB VS CAMACHO CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 09/13/2023

The court will hear from the parties.

On April 6, 2023, the court posted a tentative in response to Petitioner's petition to compel arbitration.

That tentative order stated: Petitioner Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club's Petition to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.

'In the absence of any existing contract action, a section 1281.2 petition may be filed independently, in which case it commences an independent lawsuit to enforce the agreement to arbitrate.' (Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 515, 532.) However, such a Petition must be personally served in the same manner as a complaint. It appears that the Petition was only served on an attorney who allegedly represented Respondent in connection with a pre-litigation demand letter.

That attorney then failed to respond to subsequent correspondence. Given those circumstances it is not clear that the attorney still represented Respondent at the time the Petition was filed or that the attorney was authorized to accept service of the Petition on behalf of Respondent. Prior to this court having personal jurisdiction over Respondent, she must be personally served.

(ROA 8.) On April 7, 2023, Petitioner's counsel appeared at the hearing on the petition, indicated that Respondent was not served, and agreed to serve Respondent personally. (See ROA 9.) The motion was then taken off calendar and the tentative was not confirmed. (Ibid.) No further Petition to Compel Arbitration appears to have been filed or served. Now Petitioner has filed three motions to compel discovery on the merits of an arbitration that was never compelled. Additionally, the papers have only been served on an attorney who may or may not actually be Respondent's attorney of record in this matter. The court invites a discussion on the status of this case.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091964  4