Additional Lawzilla Information: Defendant’s attorney is Charles Caraway of Goyette and Associates

18-CIV-01921 LAW OFFICES OF K.J. PETSAS, PC, ET AL. VS. ROBERT LEE RENN, III, ET AL.

LAW OFFICES OF K.J. PETSAS, PC ROBERT LEE RENN
KYLE MONTES DE OCA CHARLES D. CARAWAY

MOTION / PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion to compel arbitration is denied. A. Defendant Waived His Right to Arbitrate. Defendant concedes that he rejected Plaintiff’s offer to arbitrate Plaintiff’s fee claim, but contends that he rejected only “binding” arbitration. The motion before the Court is for binding arbitration. When arbitration is pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq., the resulting arbitration award is, in substance, binding. Judicial arbitration is nonbinding; a party dissatisfied with the award may reject the award by requesting trial de novo. In contrast, when arbitration is under Section 1280 et seq., such as what the present motion seeks, the arbitration award may be attacked only on limited grounds. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 1286.2(a)(1)-(6).

Defendant’s rejection of binding arbitration is inconsistent with the present motion, which seeks binding arbitration. The court concludes that Defendant has waived the right to compel arbitration.

B. Plaintiff Is Involved in Litigation with a Nonparty to the Agreement.
A motion to compel arbitration may be denied when one party to the agreement is involved in litigation with a nonparty to the agreement and the litigation arises from the same general transaction. Defendant Renn and his wife are the plaintiffs in the Sacramento malpractice action. Defendant’s wife was not a party to the retainer agreement. Therefore, Plaintiff Petsas is involved in litigation with a nonparty arising from the same general transaction. The present action is to determine how much attorney’s fees, if any, Defendant owes Plaintiff. The Sacramento action alleges that Plaintiff Petsas breached his duty of care by mishandling the underlying action. Although both actions seek different remedies, the issues overlap. It is likely that as a defense in the present action for attorney’s fees, Renn will claim an offset by the amount of damage caused by the malpractice. It appears that the issue of attorney malpractice will be tried in both cases. A possibility of inconsistent results exists between the present action and the Sacramento action. The motion to compel arbitration is denied.

B. Additional Matters.

The Court notes that Plaintiff in this action as moved to transfer the Sacramento action to San Mateo County. Plaintiff also hints that the cases should be consolidated. The denial of the present motion is without prejudice to renewing the motion if the Sacramento action is transferred to this court. Any renewed motion must meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sect. 1008, subdivision (b).

As a client, Defendant normally has a statutory right to nonbinding arbitration under Business & Professions Code Sections 6200 et seq. The present motion, however, does not seek arbitration under that statutory scheme. (See Notice of Motion at 1:26-27.) Denial of this motion does not constitute a ruling on whether Defendant may seek arbitration under Business & Professions Code section 6200 et seq.