Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV02265, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02265    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 17, 2025                      TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Hui Su v. AHMC Garfield Medical Center, LP et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV02265           

MOTION TO VACATE STIPULATION TO ARBITRATE

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Hui Su

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants AHMC Garfield Medical Center, LP and Garfield Medical Center

CASE HISTORY:

·         01/19/22: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination and wrongful termination action that was filed on January 19, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that she was harassed based on her age and national origin and wrongfully terminated.

Plaintiff moves to vacate a stipulation to arbitrate.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff moves to vacate a stipulation to arbitrate.

            Plaintiff has not specified the authority under which this motion is brought either in her notice of motion nor in the body of the moving papers, which deprives Defendants of fair notice of the legal basis for this motion. Moreover, without specifying any legal authority, the Court is without a method of evaluating the procedural and substantive propriety of this motion. This deficiency alone warrants denial of Plaintiff’s motion.

            Further, to the extent that Plaintiff’s motion is premised on Code of Civil Procedure section 473 subdivision (b), Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with the procedural requirements for either the discretionary provision or the mandatory relief provision. The discretionary provision authorizes a party to seek relief from a “judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” so long as the motion is made “within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) [emphasis added].) Here, Plaintiff seeks to set aside a stipulation to arbitrate signed by her counsel on March 17, 2022, on the grounds that her then-counsel did not have authority to so stipulate. This motion was not brought, however, until October 2024 – more than two and a half years later. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore untimely under section 473 subdivision (b).

Even if Plaintiff’s motion were to be considered notwithstanding the six-month time limit, Plaintiff’s papers do not explain when she discovered the stipulation or otherwise account for (1) not removing her former counsel until March 26, 2024, when his motion to be relieved was granted (March 26, 2024 Minute Order); (2) not retaining new counsel until around August 2024 (see Substitution of Attorney filed October 31, 2024), and then (3) not bringing this motion until October 28, 2024. Instead, Plaintiff endeavors to challenge the enforceability of a set of arbitration agreements, which are not material to the relevant challenge here, which attacks a stipulation to arbitrate, not the underlying arbitration agreement. On such a meager and deficient record, the Court cannot justify vacating the parties’ stipulation.

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Stipulation to Arbitrate is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 17, 2025                                  ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.