Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV17323, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17323    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 25, 2022, claimant Houshang Tojarieh (“Claimant”) filed this petition to open a civil case and assign a case number to an underinsured motorist arbitration against respondent Geico Insurance Company (“Geico”).  On June 9, 2022, Claimant filed a motion to compel arbitration, but it was never heard.  About a month later, on July 11, 2022, Geico filed a motion to compel arbitration, claiming that Claimant has refused to proceed with arbitration.  On August 10, 2022, the Court granted Geico’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement already provided rules for appointing an arbitrator through the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”).

On November 15, 2022, Claimant filed this motion for an order appointing a neutral arbitrator. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 provides: If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed.  In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.6.) 

Claimant argues that this Court may appoint an arbitrator because the “agreed method” has failed.  Claimant explains that on August 22, 2022, AAA appointed an arbitrator, Benjamin R. Trachtman, but Claimant objected to this appointment because Mr. Trachtman is still practicing as a defense attorney for insurance companies. 

On September 1, 2022, Claimant complained about the disclosure report that AAA provided because it failed to include information that would allow Claimant to determine whether a specific arbitrator would be neutral, and requested a list of 5 specific arbitrators by name, disclosure reports, including prevailing parties and amounts awarded to prevailing parties, and compensation arrangements for review, with Claimant to pay all associated fees for this additional information.  In response, Geico wrote on September 8, 2022 that Claimant’s demand for a list was unnecessary because if Claimant needed any additional information, Claimant could simply submit a request to AAA. 

On October 11, 2022, after receiving Claimant’s objections, AAA disqualified Mr. Trachtman.  AAA informed Claimant that in order to provide a list of arbitrators, both Claimant and Geico would be required to stipulate to this process because it was not part of AAA’s rules.  Geico refused to stipulate to Claimant’s demands and insisted on adhering to AAA’s rules for appointing an arbitrator, but requested that any appointed arbitrator have not previously participated in any case with Geico. 

Claimant cites nothing in the AAA rules that requires AAA to provide a list of 5 specific arbitrators who: (1) are not “defense-oriented attorneys”, (2) have decided matters in favor of the plaintiff in at least half of all the arbitrations they have presided over, or are employed full-time as arbitrators only, and (3) are not employed by Geico or do business with Geico.  (Aziz Decl., Ex. 23.) 

In essence, Claimant is arguing that AAA’s process for appointing a neutral arbitrator has “failed” or “cannot be followed”, and therefore court intervention is needed, because Claimant does not agree with that process.  Claimant has repeatedly asked for a “list” of arbitrators, even though this is not required by AAA rules, which, by contract, governs this arbitration.  Although Claimant characterizes Geico as the party who is “impeding” the appointment of an arbitrator by refusing to concede to Claimant’s demands, Claimant is the party who has objected to the last two arbitrators.  The AAA rules provide that after a party objects to an arbitrator, and after gathering the parties’ opinions, AAA will decide if the arbitrator should be disqualified and this decision is final and conclusive.  (R-19 (a).)  Because a process for appointing a neutral arbitrator exists, this Court will not supplant AAA’s authority to do so.

Claimant’s motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.