Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case 21STCV47047 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff Bart Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant California Fair Plan Association and Debora Stefans (“Defendants.”)

The FAC was filed on March 21, 2022. The FAC alleged three causes of action (1) Declaratory Judgment, (2) Breach of Contract, and (3) Unfair Business Practices and Bad Faith. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff had a contract with Defendant California Fair Plan Association, whereby Defendant would pay the insured for any losses and repairs from direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff alleges that after a truck collision damaged his house, Defendant denied settlement of the claims and denied coverage.

On June 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement and made a written election for arbitration.

Plaintiff’s current Motion to Compel Arbitration was filed on October 21, 2022. Defendant’s Opposition was filed on November 29, 2022. Plaintiff’s reply was filed on December 2, 2022.

Under CCP section 1141.11(a), “In each superior court with 18 or more judges, all nonexempt unlimited civil cases shall be submitted to arbitration under this chapter if the amount in controversy, in the opinion of the court, will not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each plaintiff.”

“In all superior courts, the Judicial Council shall provide by rule for a uniform system of arbitration of the following causes: (a) Any cause, regardless of the amount in controversy, upon stipulation of the parties. (b) Upon filing of an election by the plaintiff, any cause in which the plaintiff agrees that the arbitration award shall not exceed the amount in controversy as specified in Section 1141.11,” i.e., $50,000 for each plaintiff. (CCP § 1141.12.)

The determination of the amount in controversy, under subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 1141.11, shall be made by the court and the case referred to arbitration after all named parties have appeared or defaulted. The determination shall be made at a case management conference or based upon review of the written submissions of the parties, as provided in rules adopted by the Judicial Council. The determination shall be based on the total amount of damages, and the judge may not consider questions of liability or comparative negligence or any other defense. At that time the court shall also make a determination whether any prayer for equitable relief is frivolous or insubstantial. The determination of the amount in controversy and whether any prayer for equitable relief is frivolous or insubstantial may not be appealable. No determination pursuant to this section shall be made if all parties stipulate in writing that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount specified in Section 1141.11.

Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.811(a), cases that must be arbitrated include, (1) in each superior court with 18 or more authorized judges, all unlimited civil cases where the amount in controversy does not exceed $50,000 as to any plaintiff. Also, “Upon filing of an election by all plaintiffs, any limited or unlimited civil case in any court in which each plaintiff agrees that the arbitration award will not exceed $50,000 as to that plaintiff” must be arbitrated. (CRC Rule 3.811(a)(5).) Exceptions are specified in Rule 3.811(b).

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to arbitrate the matter pursuant to CCP § 1141.11, because the amount in controversy is approximately $17,2000, less than the prescribed amount in the statute. Additionally, Plaintiff moves to compel under Rules of Court 3.811 and 3.812, which provide that a case under $50,000 can be arbitrated and when plaintiff who elects to submit a case to arbitration, “the case must be set for arbitration forthwith, subject to a motion by defendant for good cause to delay the arbitration hearing.” Additionally, the “written election” choice to arbitrate “must be filed no later than the time the initial case management statement is filed, unless the court orders otherwise.” (Rule 3.812(b).)

Defendant argues that this matter is exempt from judicial arbitration because the FAC includes a prayer for equitable relief, as the motion indicates that the prayer for equitable relief is not frivolous. Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff waived the right to submit this matter to judicial arbitration. Under CCP § 1141.11(d)(1), a plaintiff must submit this type of matter, a to arbitration within 120 days of defendant’s answer being filed in limited civil cases.

Under CCP § 1141.13 “This chapter shall not apply to any civil action which includes a prayer for equitable relief, except that if the prayer for equitable relief is frivolous or insubstantial, this chapter shall be applicable.” Plaintiff’s complaint is captioned, “Complaint for Declaratory Relief” and the first substantive paragraph clearly indicates that Plaintiff is seeking declaratory relief. Moreover, in his moving papers, Plaintiff states that his prayer for equitable relief “is not frivolous or unsubstantial.” Accordingly, on its face, it is undisputed that under Rule of Court, rule 3.811(b), the matter is exempt from arbitration. As such, the Court need not rule on the timeliness of the election.[1]

[1] The Court would note that the written election must occur before the case management conference which is subject to a motion by defendant for good cause to delay the arbitration. In other words, the objecting party needed to file the motion. Moreover, the so called 120 day time limit in CCP §1141,11(d)(1), is only applicable to limited jurisdiction filings.