Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV24562, Date: 2025-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24562    Hearing Date: April 9, 2025    Dept: 45

KAREN ANNE MILLER, ET AL. VS W. TODD STEVENSON, ET AL.

MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Date of Hearing:        April 8, 2025                                      Trial Date:       None set  

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        22STCV24562

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Karen Anne Miller

Responding Party:     Defendants W. Todd Stevenson and Steveson Law Office, P.C.

BACKGROUND

This is a legal malpractice case. Plaintiffs Karen Anne Miller and Patricia Lutter filed this action on July 29, 2022 against Defendants W. Todd Stevenson, Esq. and Stevenson Law Office, P.C., alleging causes of action for (1) Legal Malpractice; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Fraud; and (4) Negligent Misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges Karen Anne Miller retained Defendants on July 23, 2021 to represent her on conservatorship issues and to defend an action. Defendants allegedly failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in undertaking to perform said legal services by failing to: (1) completely investigate the facts surrounding the conservatorship; (2) promptly identify and contact all witnesses to the facts; (3) promptly obtain witness statements; (4) promptly obtain medical records and seek a physician’s assessment of the plaintiff’s physical and mental condition; (5) promptly investigate the plaintiff’s mental capacity; and (6) properly advise and represent the property and spousal interest of Plaintiffs.

On January 4, 2023, the court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action until arbitration was completed.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiff Karen Anne Miller’s Motion for the Defendants to Pay in Full Arbitration Fees and Costs, or Alternatively Lift the Court Stay and Set This Case for Trial is GRANTED.  

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant W. Todd Stevenson and Stevenson Law Office, P.C. request this court take judicial notice of the Petition for Appointment of Temporary Conservator filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court action on July 19, 2021 and bearing case no. 21STPB07058 (Exh. A). The court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Karen Ann Miller moves for an order relieving Plaintiff from paying the fees and costs of arbitration, or alternatively, lifting the court’s stay to allow this case to proceed to trial. Plaintiff Miller makes the motion on the grounds she is an “indigent” and cannot afford to pay the costs of private arbitration. Moreover, Plaintiff has had major health issues resulting in further financial distress.

“Unless the arbitration agreement otherwise provides or the parties to the arbitration otherwise agree, each party to the arbitration shall pay his pro rata share of the expenses and fees of the neutral arbitrator, together with other expenses of the arbitration incurred or approved by the neutral arbitrator, not including counsel fees or witness fees or other expenses incurred by a party for his own benefit.” (CCP § 1284.2.) “Although the ability-to-pay test is inconsistent with the statute requiring a pro rata sharing of arbitration costs, the statute is simply a default provision, and the limitation on unreasonable costs prevails over the cost allocation prescribed by the statute. (Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 77, modified on denial of rehearing.) Section 1284.3 provides all fees and costs assessed in consumer arbitration, except arbitrator fees, are waived for indigent consumers.

Plaintiff Miller maintains the advance payments required to proceed with arbitration are beyond her financial wherewithal. (Miller Decl. ¶8.) Plaintiff Miller’s income is limited to Social Security Benefits and as such, her total combined income amounts to approximately $3,700 per month. (Miller Decl. ¶8.) As a result, she has no money to pay the $10,000[1] retainer fee. (Miller Decl.)

Defendant opposes the motion on the grounds Plaintiff has not provided any evidence supporting the relief requested, there are two Plaintiffs in this matter and there is no showing that the other Plaintiff cannot pay the arbitration fees. Defendant further argues Plaintiff Miller is not a “consumer” within the definition of Code of Civil Procedure section 1284.3 and this motion is yet another delay tactic.

The court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently shown their inability to pay. While the court agrees Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated they are a ‘consumer’ for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 1284.3, under penalty of perjury, Plaintiff attests her income is limited to Social Security Benefits and her income is approximately $3,700 a month. This would put Plaintiff with a gross monthly income of less than 300% of the federal poverty guidelines. Moreover, case law provides issues compelled to arbitration but where a party cannot pay the arbitrator fees, the matters can proceed to trial and/or the other party can pay the arbitrator fees. (See Cinel v. Christopher (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 759; see also Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 87.)

As a result, Defendant has the option of either paying Plaintiff Miller’s share of the arbitration cost or waiving its right to arbitrate that Plaintiff’s case and allowing the case to proceed in court. The court notes Defendant has failed to provide any case law that the other Plaintiff would be or should be responsible for paying for Plaintiff Miller’s share of the arbitration cost.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Karen Anne Miller’s Motion for the Defendants to Pay in Full Arbitration Fees and Costs, or Alternatively Lift the Court Stay and Set This Case for Trial is GRANTED.

MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

Plaintiff also moves for trial preference pursuant to C.C.P. Section 36(a).  If defendant agrees to pay the arbitration fees for Ms. Miller, as described above, this motion is moot.  Any request for preference would need to be directed to the arbitrator.  If defendant elects to instead waive the right to arbitrate as to Plaintiff Miller, the court would sever the claims, lift the stay and return this case to the civil active list in this court.  Under those circumstances, the court would need to consider and rule on plaintiff’s motion for trial preference.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 36(a) provides that:

(a) A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may

petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the

court makes both of the following findings:

(1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a

whole.

(2) The health of the party is such that a preference is

necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.

The court agrees with defendant that plaintiff has failed to establish that her health is so jeopardized that she is entitled to trial preference in order to avoid prejudicing her interest in the litigation.  Her vague references to her medical condition, without credible medical evidence, are insufficient to establish entitlement to trial preference.  Further, the court finds that her actions in delaying the arbitration, spelled out in considerable detail in defendants’ papers, contradict any claim that she is trying to move this case forward due to her health issues.   The motion for trial preference is denied.