IN THE MATTER OF: SHERI AVANTS

26CV014374: IN THE MATTER OF: SHERI AVANTS 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

26CV014374: IN THE MATTER OF: SHERI AVANTS 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Claimant Sheri Avants’ motion to compel underinsured arbitration is denied.

This proceeding concerns Claimant’s underinsured motorist coverage. Claimant was involved in a motor vehicle collision with a third party on October 22, 2022. Claimant resolved her case against the third party for the policy limits of $25,000. Claimant initiated this proceeding against Respondent USAA General Indemnity Company on June 10, 2026, by filing a Petition for Assignment of Superior Court File Number in an Underinsured Motorist Matter. Claimant filed the instant motion on July 23, 2026.

Claimant indicates that she formally demanded arbitration pursuant to Insurance Code § 11580.2 on June 25, 2026. (Wood Decl. ¶ 11.) On July 20, 2022, Respondent’s claims advisor indicated that counsel was being assigned to represent Respondent. (Id. ¶ 5.) According to Petitioner, Respondent has failed to respond to the arbitration demand or to take steps to select an arbitrator.

Petitioner now moves to compel arbitration pursuant to CCP § 1281.2 and Insurance Code § 11580.2. Respondent opposes the motion on the basis that it has agreed to arbitrate and has agreed to either of the arbitrators proposed by Claimant.

As a preliminary matter Insurance Code §11580.2(f) requires that an underinsured motorist policy contain a provision requiring arbitration with respect to the issue of the insured’s entitlement to damages and the amount of damages. It also provides that any arbitration shall be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator. That section does not provide the authority for a Court to compel either appointment of an arbitrator or even arbitration.

To the extent that Claimant seeks an order compelling the matter to arbitration pursuant to CCP § 1281.2, that request is denied. CCP § 1281.2 provides in relevant part: “On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV014374: IN THE MATTER OF: SHERI AVANTS 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists ” (CCP § 1281.2 [emphasis added].) Claimant provides no actual evidence that Respondent has refused to arbitrate this matter. To the contrary, Claimant has agreed to arbitrate. (Bonzell Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8 and Exh. B.) Given the lack of showing that a party to any arbitration agreement has refused to arbitrate, the motion to compel arbitration must be denied.

While Claimant did not indicate in her notice of motion that she also sought an order appointing an arbitrator, she does request appointment in the memorandum of points and authorities. CCP § 1281.6 provides as follows: “[i]f the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed. If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed.

In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.” (CCP § 1281.6.) Claimant indicates that the policy provides for arbitration by a “single neutral arbitrator” and requests appointment of one of two individuals. However, prior to the motion being filed, Respondent agreed to have either of these individuals serve as arbitrator. (Bonzell Decl. ¶ 8 and Exh.

B.) The motion for appointment of arbitrator must be denied as the method for appointing an arbitrator has not failed and Respondent has agreed to Claimant’s proposals.

Finally, Claimant requests that any arbitration be ordered to take place within 60 to 90 days. Given that the motion to compel arbitration has been denied, this request is also denied. In any event, Claimant cites no authority which would permit the Court to require an arbitration to take place by a date certain. Any scheduling issues shall be addressed to the arbitrator once selected.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.