Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCP02665, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02665    Hearing Date: March 6, 2024    Dept: 39

Kosim Midek, et al. v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company

Case No. 23STCP02665

Motion to Vacate Arbitration Order

            Petitioners Kosim Midek and Mega Intan (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed this action to compel arbitration of their uninsured motorist claim against Respondent Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company (“Respondent”).  The Court previously ordered arbitration of this claim.  Now, Respondent seeks to vacate that order.

            First, Respondent argues that it was not properly served.  Respondent is incorrect.  Respondent’s counsel concedes that Petitioners “did effectuate service on CT Corporation (the registered agent for service of process for Allstate.”  (Respondent’s Memorandum of Points & Authorities, p. 5:14-15.)  Instead, Respondent’s counsel argues that this was not proper because “CT Corporation had to be served via personal service,” citing Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10.  (Id., p. 5:15-17.)  Although Respondent’s counsel misinterprets the statute, which states that service “may” be effectuated via personal service, it does not appear that Petitioners complied with Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.20 or 415.30.  Petitioners’ counsel argues that he served counsel for Respondent, but counsel is not required to accept service.  Petitioners’ counsel also argues that Respondent made a general appearance.  In fact, Respondent made no appearance before the Court granted the petition to compel arbitration.    

            Second, Petitioners argue that venue is improper because there is a pending case in the San Bernardino Superior Court.  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1292.4: “If a controversy referrable to arbitration under an alleged agreement is involved in an action or proceeding pending in a superior court, a petition for an order to arbitrate shall be filed in such action or proceeding.”  Petitioners’ counsel does not address this issue in his opposition.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court vacates its order compelling arbitration and all related deadlines.

            2.         The Court dismisses this petition.

3.         This order is without prejudice to Petitioners seeking relief in Case Number CIVSB2317058.  If that case has been resolved, this order is without prejudice to Petitioners filing and serving a new petition to compel arbitration in the appropriate court.

            4.         Respondent’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.