Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2021-00010021-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 10, 2023

08/11/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00010021-CU-WT-CTL RIOS VS THE SAN DIEGO YACHT CLUB [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 07/18/2023

Defendant The San Diego Yacht Club's Motion to Remand This Action to Arbitration Pursuant to the Court's Order is DENIED. (ROA 86.) Defendant asserts this action should be 'remanded' to arbitration pursuant to the court's April 29, 2022 order, wherein the court determined there was a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement and stayed the case pending completion of arbitration.

At the outset, the court is not aware of any legal authority authorizing a state court to 'remand' an action to arbitration, nor has Defendant cited any. This terminology applies when an appellate court sends a case back to the court from which it came, or when a case that has been removed to federal court is returned to state court. A request to somehow 'remand' this action to arbitration also implies the action is presently before this court. It is not.

The court ordered Plaintiff's claims to arbitration in its April 29, 2022 order. 'Once a petition [to compel arbitration] has been granted and the lawsuit is stayed, 'the action at law sits in the twilight zone of abatement with the trial court retaining merely vestigial jurisdiction over matters submitted to arbitration.'' (Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 487, citing Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1796.) 'Absent an agreement to withdraw the controversy from arbitration, however, no other judicial act is authorized.' (Titan/Value at p. 487.) Aside from a mutual agreement to withdraw from arbitration, statutory authority provides a drafting party who fails to timely pay arbitration fees in an employment or consumer arbitration 'waives its right to compel the employee or consumer to proceed with that arbitration as a result of the material breach.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.98(a).) When this occurs, the employee or consumer has various options, including the right to [w]ithdraw the claim from arbitration and proceed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.98(b)(1).) It appears to be undisputed that Plaintiffs have withdrawn their claims from arbitration. Further, it appears a dispute has arisen between the parties as to whether the arbitration fees have been timely paid. However, at least thus far, Plaintiffs have not sought to lift the stay entered in this case and proceed with this action on these grounds. Accordingly, any request for an order to send this case 'back' to arbitration is not ripe.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2918446  7