DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CPF26519712·sf·Civil·Insurance Arbitration
Hearing in about 1 hourOFF CALENDAR

RYAN DUFFY VS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.

Petition for Order Compelling Arbitration; Motion for Judgment on the Petition

Hearing date
Aug 19, 2026
Department
302
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffRYAN DUFFY
DefendantSTATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.

Ruling

Matter on calendar for Wednesday, August 19, 2026, Line 4, PETITIONER RYAN DUFFY's Hearing On Petition For Order Compelling Arbitration.

Petitioner Ryan Duffy's unopposed Motion for Judgment on the Petition is OFF CALENDAR.

Under California law, service of a petition to compel arbitration for an uninsured motorist (UM) or underinsured motorist (UIM) claim is governed primarily by the California Arbitration Act (Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4) and relevant provisions of Insurance Code section 11580.2. A petitioner may demonstrate compliance with the policy arbitration agreement's provisions regarding service. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4(a).) Petitioner here has not alleged any facts allowing the court to find the policy provisions have been satisfied.

Alternatively, if the policy is silent and, where, as here, the insurer has not previously appeared in the proceeding, Petitioner must prove service complying with standard civil process rules for a first appearance (personal service or substituted service where applicable). (See Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4(b).) Petitioner's proof demonstrates only service on counsel by email. Such service does not comply with standard civil process rules for a first appearance. Notably, Respondent has not appeared and has not waived service.

Note, as well, Petitioner appears to seek an order appointing an arbitrator. The request, however, does not account for the procedures set out in, the showing required by or the issues addressed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.

Petitioner having failed to demonstrate proper service of his petition, the court orders this motion off calendar. Petitioner is ordered to prepare a proposed order which repeats the above text verbatim and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing.

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.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ). | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share