Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 23VECV00282, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23VECV00282    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: T

[TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Defendants Jack Zuckerman and White Zuckerman Warsavsky Luna Hunt, LLP’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action is CONTINUED to _____________, 2023. 

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6, the parties are ORDERED to MEET and CONFER to agree upon a method of appointing an arbitrator.  Defendants Jack Zuckerman and White Zuckerman Warsavsky Luna Hunt, LLP are ORDERD to file and serve the signed agreement five court days before the new hearing date on the instant motion.

If the parties cannot come to an agreement on a method, then the parties are ORDERED to jointly submit a list of ten arbitrators for the Court to nominate five arbitrators.  Defendants Jack Zuckerman and White Zuckerman Warsavsky Luna Hunt, LLP are ORDERED to file and serve the joint list of ten arbitrators five court days before the new hearing date on the instant motion.

Introduction

            Defendants Jack Zuckerman and White Zuckerman Warsavsky Luna Hunt, LLP (Defendants) moved to compel arbitration and to stay Plaintiff Shannon Calandri’s (Plaintiff) action.           

            Discussion 

            Despite the motion being a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, Plaintiff submitted that they are amenable to arbitrate the matter and stay the action.  Plaintiff’s only issue is Defendant’s choice of arbitrator, ADR Services, Inc. (ADR.)  Plaintiff instead proposed American Arbitration Association (AAA.)  The parties disagree on the choice of arbitrator only. 

The arbitration agreement stated:  “Such mediation and/or binding arbitration will be conducted by a mediator and/or arbitrator appointed by and pursuant to the Arbitration and Mediation Rules of ADR SERVICES, INC. or such other neutral facilitator acceptable to both parties.”  The arbitration provision did not mandate ADR to be the arbitrator because it allowed for the parties to come to an agreement on an arbitrator.  Because the only issue presented is the choice in arbitrator, the Court reviewed the matter as a “Motion for Appointment of an Arbitrator” pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.  A review of the arbitration agreement showed that the parties did not delineate the method of appointing an arbitrator.  Without a method stated in the agreement, the parties “may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator.”  (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 1281.6.)  If an agreement cannot be reached as to a method, then,

“the court shall nominate five persons from lists of persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration or obtained from a governmental agency concerned with arbitration or private disinterested association concerned with arbitration. The parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may within five days of receipt of notice of the nominees from the court jointly select the arbitrator whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees. If the parties fail to select an arbitrator within the five-day period, the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees.”

The parties are ordered to meet and confer to come to an agreement on a method in choosing an arbitrator. 

If the parties cannot agree to a method in choosing an arbitrator, then the Court orders the parties to submit a list of ten “persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration or obtained from a governmental agency concerned with arbitration or private disinterested association concerned with arbitration,” so that the Court can nominate five persons and provide the parties with notice of the Court’s five nominations.