Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2024-00008273-CU-UM-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Uninsured Motorist Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2024-00008273-CU-UM-CTL AYARKAN VS UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Petition - Other, 02/22/2024

Petitioner Baris Ayarkan's Petition for Order Compelling Arbitration, Selection of Arbitrator, and for an Arbitration Completion Date (ROA 1) is DENIED, except as to the request for an order to appoint an arbitrator. As to that portion of the Petition only, the court orders hearing CONTINUED to May 17, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

As to Petitioner's request for an order compelling arbitration, the Petition is denied. To obtain an order compelling arbitration, Petitioner must 'plead and prove a prior demand for arbitration under the parties' arbitration agreement and a refusal to arbitrate under the agreement.' (Mansouri v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 633, 640; see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 783, 789.) Here, Respondent agrees the parties are required to arbitrate pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy and has agreed to arbitrate. (Bozoghlian Decl. at ¶¶ 4-6 and Exh. 1.) The court concludes Petitioner did not establish Respondent refused to arbitrate under their agreement.

As to Petitioner's request for an order appointing an arbitrator, each side has proposed five names to the court. Neither side has provided the court with any information regarding the proposed arbitrators.

Accordingly, the court orders Petitioner and Respondent to each submit a supplemental declaration providing the court with resumes for each of their five proposed arbitrators on or before May 10, 2024.

In addition to filing the declarations, each party is requested to provide Department 65 with courtesy copies.

As to Petitioner's request for an order setting the date of the arbitration, or alternatively a date for completion of arbitration, the Petition is denied. Petitioner cited no legal authority for this request, nor is the court aware of any.

As to Petitioner's request for an award of costs, the Petition is denied. Here, the Petition seeks 'other than monetary' relief, so the prevailing party is to be determined by the court and costs are discretionary, not mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032(a)(4).) Two of the three substantive requests in the Petition are being denied, and Respondent has not opposed the request that the court appoint an arbitrator, Respondent is not adverse to it. Respondent agrees an arbitrator should be appointed by the court because the parties were unable to agree between themselves. Accordingly, the court finds that neither party can be considered the prevailing party, and, in any event exercises its discretion to refuse to allow costs. (Ibid.) Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3103379  2