Motion to Compel Arbitration
(37) Tentative Ruling
Re: Simpson v. Brar Superior Court Case No. 25CECG05496
Hearing Date: June 4, 2026 (Dept. 503)
Motion: By Defendant to Compel Arbitration
Tentative Ruling:
To continue the hearing to Tuesday, August 11, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. in Department 503. Plaintiff may file a response no later than July 21, 2026. Any response shall not exceed ten pages.
Explanation:
Timeliness
Defendant asserts that the opposition filed by plaintiff is untimely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6. Here, defendant did not file a true Petition to Compel Arbitration, but rather filed a motion in response to plaintiff initiating a case by filing her complaint. It is not clear whether the general motions statute or the statute for a petition to compel arbitration governs the timing of any opposition here. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1290.6; Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 602, 613.) However, courts are authorized to consider late-filed oppositions where there is no prejudice to the moving party. (Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 613.) Thus, even if the petition timeline governs, the Court has discretion to consider the opposition here. The Court has considered the opposition.
New Evidence on Reply
“The general rule of motion practice ... is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers ... [and] should only be allowed in the exceptional case ...” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.) The same is true with new arguments presented for the first time on reply. (See Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 402, 409
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
County of Orange (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1216, fn 4.) However, if the court exercises its discretion to allow new evidence or argument in reply papers, the opposing party must be given an opportunity to respond. (Alliant Ins. Services, Inc. v. Gaddy (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1307-1308.) The court is exercising its discretion to consider the new information provided in defendant’s reply. As such, the matter is continued to provide plaintiff an opportunity to respond.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order
adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: JS on 6/2/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
4