1341 UNION STREET TENANCY-IN-COMMON, AN VS. STEVEN SCOTT TOLLEFSRUD ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24612504 - July 27, 2026 Hearing date: July 27, 2026 Case number: CGC24612504 Case title: 1341 UNION STREET TENANCY-IN-COMMON, AN VS. STEVEN SCOTT TOLLEFSRUD ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24612504 | Case Title: | | 1341 UNION STREET TENANCY-IN-COMMON, AN VS. STEVEN SCOTT TOLLEFSRUD ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-07-27 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Arbitration And To Stay This Action | Rulings: | | Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Monday, July 27, 2026, Line 3.

Defendants Scott Tollesfrud and Scott Hauswirth's motion to compel arbitration and to stay this action is denied. Defendant waived the right to compel arbitration. Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 562, 584 explains that: "To establish waiver under generally applicable contract law, the party opposing enforcement of a contractual agreement must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the waiving party knew of the contractual right and intentionally relinquished or abandoned it.

Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, the proponent of a fact must show that it is "highly probable" the fact is true. The waiving party's knowledge of the right may be "actual or constructive." Its intentional relinquishment or abandonment of the right may be proved by evidence of words expressing an intent to relinquish the right or of conduct that is so inconsistent with an intent to enforce the contractual right as to lead a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the party had abandoned it."

Defendants' delay in seeking arbitration and their litigation activity are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate showing that, on a clear and convincing standard, that they waived their right to arbitrate the merits of this case as well as the issue of arbitrability. Defendants emphasize that their answer filed on October 13, 2025 raises arbitration. Since then, however, they have engaged in extensive pleading and discovery litigation before seeking to arbitrate. Defendants' case management statement filed on March 24, 2026, which refers to both the complaint and cross-complaint, requests a jury trial. They deposited jury fees and made an ex parte application for a jury trial. Defendants' litigation conduct is totally inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. Tollefsrud's recent retention of additional counsel does not revive the waived right.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.