Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCP04263, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCP04263 Hearing Date: March 13, 2023 Dept: 39
James River
Insurance Company v. Jerry Luss
Case Number
20STCP04263
Motion to Compel
Arbitration
The parties
have not yet arbitrated this case. Now,
Respondent Jerry Luss moves the Court to appoint a neutral arbitrator pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.
However, the record reflects that the parties have agreed upon an
arbitrator.
Initially, Respondent’s counsel
suggested several arbitrators, including Amy Solomon, to whom Petitioner’s
counsel agreed. (Declaration of Jamal J.
Atiba, ¶ 6.) However, Ms. Solomon
informed the parties that she was declining the appointment. (Ibid.)
On November 4, 2022, Respondent’s counsel agreed to use Janet Field,
Lauren Tate, and R.A. Carrington.
(Declaration of Jamal J. Atiba, ¶ 10 & Exh I.) Petitioner’s counsel sent an email stating
that she would “reach out to Ms. Fields, Ms. Tate, and Mr. Carrington regarding
arbitration dates,” and Respondent’s counsel responded: “2-day Arb is
fine.” (Id., Exh. I.) Two days prior, Respondent’s counsel had
stated that “[i]f it’s between Fields and Carrington, whoever is first
available we’d agree to.” (Id., Exh.
G.) This motion was filed on December 6,
2021, after which the parties agreed upon Carrington. (Id., ¶ 15.)
Carrington confirmed that he would available on May 31 and June 1,
2023. (Id., Exh. M.) Respondent’s counsel expressed a preference
for May 24 and May 25, 2023.
(Ibid.) On January 13, 2023,
Carrington agreed on the dates of May 24 and May 25, 2023, and asked the
parties to sign and return the notices and deposits. (Id. ¶ 16 & Exh. N.) About one month later, on February 16, 2023,
Carrington contacted counsel again and asked whether the arbitration would be
on May 24/25 or May 31/June 1. (Id.,
Exh. P.) Someone from Respondent’s
counsel’s office confirmed that the arbitration would be May 24 and May 25,
2023, and Respondent’s counsel was copied on the email. (Ibid.)
There is no record of any objection to Carrington by Respondent’s
counsel. Tellingly, Respondent’s counsel
did not file a reply brief or declaration disputing this record.
The Court
is unclear why the motion was not withdrawn in favor of a stipulation and
proposed order. The Court is troubled
because Respondent’s motion contains a series of inaccurate statements. For example, the record does not reflect that
Petitioner’s counsel “refuses to make an informal attempt at reaching an
agreement on any methods of appointing an arbitrator” and “refuses to
participate or cooperate to reach an agreement by which an arbitrator can be
selected.” (Respondent’s Motion, p.
2.) To the contrary, the record reflects
that the parties discussed and agreed upon an arbitrator, and that there was no
need for this motion. Not only are
Respondent’s counsel’s accusations untrue, his approach reflects a lack of
mindfulness. At present, the Court has
644 open cases and currently is presiding over a jury trial. Unnecessary motions deprive other litigants
of their access to justice.
“If the arbitration agreement provides a
method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed.” Respondent did not provide any information or
documentation on this issue. In the
alternative, the parties “may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and
that method shall be followed.” The
parties have done so in stipulating to R.A. Carrington. Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as
follows:
1. Respondent’s motion is granted. The Court orders the parties to use R.A.
Carrington as the arbitrator pursuant to their stipulation.
2. The Court finds that there was no good
cause for this motion to have been filed.
The Court finds that there was no good cause for Respondent’s counsel
having not taken the motion off-calendar before the hearing date.
3. The Court orders the parties to
meet-and-confer concerning arbitration dates.
The Court declines to set an arbitration completion date at this time.
4. The Court continues the Order to Show
Cause re: Dismissal to June 26, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. The Court orders counsel for both parties to
appear either remotely or in-person.
5. Petitioner’s counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of such with the Court.