Motion for summary judgment
“California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration and any doubts regarding the arbitrability of a dispute are resolved in favor of arbitration.” (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 686.) “This strong policy has resulted in the general rule that arbitration should be upheld unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.” (Id., quotations omitted.)
Parties’ Arbitration Agreement
Respondent State Farm submits competent evidence that Claimant Grossman’s then-effective insurance policy includes an arbitration agreement for underinsured motorist claims that reads in relevant part: If there is no agreement, upon written request of the insured or us, the[] questions [of whether the insured is entitled to collect damages from the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle; and in what amount] shall be decided by arbitration as provided by section 11580.2 of the California Insurance Code. The insured’s written request must be sent to us by certified mail, return receipt requested. (Markwith Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A at p. 14 [emphases in original].)
Claimant Grossman’s claims fall within the scope of this arbitration clause. Claimant here seeks additional compensation via her underinsured motorist coverage with Respondent State Farm, after having settled her claim against third-party motorist Jose Wellington for his liability insurance policy limits. (Markwith Decl. ¶ 2.) Claimant initially demanded arbitration, sending a formal demand via counsel on 07/04/2023. (Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Thereafter, Claimant’s counsel did not respond to inquiries about proposed arbitrator and mediation. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)
Claimant chose not to oppose the petition and, thus, concedes the issues presented in the motion. (See, e.g., DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566 [finding plaintiffs conceded an issue by failing to argue the contrary].)
Clerk is ordered to give notice.
2 High Tech The hearing on Plaintiff High Tech Coatings’ motion for summary judgment Coatings vs. Pen is CONTINUED to July 23, 2026, at 01:30 pm in Department C10. Manufacturing, LLC On February 23, 2026, James Ling of Ling Law Group, APC, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Pen Manufacturing, LLC.
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?”
While that motion was still pending, but before the court decided the motion, Plaintiff filed the motion for summary judgment on March 10, 2026, while Defendant was still represented by counsel. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was served on Defendant’s counsel.
Nine days later, on March 19, 2026, the court entered an order relieving James Ling of Ling Law Group, APC as counsel for Defendant. The court ordered James Ling to serve notice of the court’s order relieving counsel, an OSC re why Defendant’s answer should not be stricken, and the moving papers on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Defendant.
On March 19, 2026, James Ling filed a declaration stating that he served the court’s order relieving Ling as counsel and Plaintiff’s moving papers on the motion for summary judgment, on Defendant by email. At that point, however, Defendant would be akin to a self-represented party. California Rule of Court 2.251(c)(3)(B) provides that self-represented parties “are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service.” By serving Defendant by email rather than mail, the court has grave concerns whether or not Defendant has had notice of the order relieving Ling as counsel and/or the hearing date of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Further, on April 16, 2026, the court entered an order striking Defendant’s answer as an unrepresented corporation. It is unclear whether or not Defendant received proper notice of this order.
While Plaintiff has no blame for the current situation and the oversight of counsel James Ling has caused Plaintiff unnecessary delay, to ensure Defendant’s due process, the court orders that Plaintiff to serve written notice and a copy of: (1) the court’s order relieving James Ling of Ling Law Group, APC as counsel for Defendant, (2) the continued hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (3) the moving papers on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (4) and the court’s order striking Defendant’s answer, all by mail within 5 court days of this order.
Once Plaintiff serves said notices/documents, Plaintiff may alternatively immediately proceed with default/default judgment procedures in lieu of proceeding on the motion for summary judgment.
The Case Management Conference scheduled for July 16, 2026, is continued to July 23, 2026, at 01:30 pm in Department C10.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
3 Hulsey vs. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Rickie Hulsey move to set aside the Court’s Nguyen January 22, 2026, order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
A motion for reconsideration made by a party must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law than those before the court at the time of the original ruling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) The motion must also be accompanied by an affidavit from the moving party that states: (1) what application was previously made; (2) when and to what judge; (3) what 4