Petition to compel uninsured motorist arbitration
February 11, 2025, however, following a careful review by the assigned complex judge, that judge determined this case is not complex and referred it for assignment to a judge on the unlimited civil panel. (See Feb. 11, 2025 Minute Order.)
There has been no effort to rebut or otherwise overcome that determination. Based on the foregoing, the motion to deem this case complex is DENIED.
Given the trial date in this matter was vacated by the May 20, 2026 Minute Order, the court sets a trial setting conference for August 27, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., in Department W15. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
14. Dababneh vs. CSAA Insurance Exchange 2026-01556698 Before the court is the petition by petitioners Shadi Khaled Dababneh and Roxanna Juarez Noria (collectively, Petitioner) to compel respondent CSAA Insurance Exchange (Respondent) to participate in uninsured motorist arbitration.
As more fully set forth below, the petition is CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2026, AT 2:00 P.M., IN DEPARTMENT C23, for proof of service and supplemental information required to grant the petition.
California Rule of Court 3.1330 requires that a petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 1281.2 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim, or a copy must be attached to the petition and incorporated by reference.
Here, the arbitration agreement is neither attached nor set forth verbatim. The petition merely states Respondent agreed to provide uninsured motorist coverage to Petitioners. Attached to the petition is a declaration page. That page does not set forth the terms of any arbitration agreement between the parties. The fact that underinsured motorist arbitration is at issue does not excuse compliance with this requirement. The parties may agree to expand such arbitration beyond the statutorily required issue, and therefore a copy of the agreement is required.
Moreover, the declarations page attached to the petition does not identify Petitioners as insured. Rather, it identifies Scott, Helen, and Jacob Hall of San Jose, California as the insured.
In addition, the proof of service attached to the motion to compel arbitration fails to satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, and therefore is not sufficient. That code section states as follows:
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?”
“(a) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice. “(b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision: “(1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action. “(2) Service outside this State shall be made by mailing the copy of the petition and notice and other papers by registered or certified mail.
Personal service is the equivalent of such service by mail. Proof of service by mail shall be made by affidavit showing such mailing together with the return receipt of the United States Post Office bearing the signature of the person on whom service was made. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if service is made in the manner provided in this paragraph, the petition may not be heard until at least 30 days after the date of such service.”
The attached proof of service is for eservice on a law firm. That is not sufficient without an agreement to accept service on behalf of Respondent in this manner. Although the letter from the law firm may be sufficient to allow service of other documents by eservice, it is not sufficient to comply with section 1290.4 and confer jurisdiction with this court.
Based on the foregoing, the petition is CONTINUED as stated above for Petitioners to address the foregoing issues. Any supplemental filing must be filed and served within the time and in the manner required for the initial filing and service. Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
15. Claim of Zavala and Medina 2025-01532561 Before the court is the continued hearing on the motion of petitioner People of the State of California (Petitioner) for default and default judgment of forfeiture. As more fully set forth below, the motion is CONTINUED TO