BANDULA-TALBOT vs STATE FARM INSURANCE

26CV010729: BANDULA-TALBOT vs STATE FARM INSURANCE 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Claimant Teresa Bandula-Talbot’s (“Claimant”) motion to compel arbitration in an underinsured motorist action is GRANTED.

This matter arises from an automobile collision that occurred on January 15, 2025, in which the at-fault motorist was an uninsured driver. Claimant now moves to compel arbitration.

Respondent State Farm Insurance (“State Farm”) has filed a partial opposition wherein State Farm argues that this motion “is premature given the fact that discovery has not been completed.” (Opposition at 1:24-25.) State Farm more specifically represents, that at the time of writing the opposition, it has not received Claimant’s responses to its initial discovery requests, nor has it “subpoenaed any of Claimant’s medical records because no records were ever transmitted to State Farm pre-arbitration demand. (Opposition at 3:27-4:5; see also Declaration of Gareth J.

Umipeg, at ¶¶ 6-8.) State Farm adds that it “concurs with Claimant that if [this action] cannot be resolved by agreement between the parties, then it must be resolved by Arbitration.” (Id., at 3:7-8.) Thus, argues State Farm, because it “has not and does not refuse to arbitrate,” this motion must be denied. (Id., at 3:16-17.) Finally, State Farm contends that because the parties have agreed to have Nicholas Lowe preside over the Arbitration, this portion of the Motion is moot and should be denied. (Id., at 3:21-24.)

In reply, Claimant indicates that it has provided State Farm with responses to discovery and that those responses include all of Claimant’s medical records and bills currently in her possession. (Reply at 2:3-10; see also Reply Declaration of Christopher Wood [“Wood Reply Decl.”] at ¶ 2.) Claimant further represents that she has provided an “Expense Summary that clearly outlines all of [her] medical providers and information for Respondent’s subpoena for medical records” and that she has agreed to waive time on Respondent’s subpoena to expedite the request process. (Ibid.; see also Wood Reply Decl., at ¶¶ 3-4.) Claimant also reiterates that the parties have already agreed to retain Mr. Lowe as Arbitrator. (Ibid., at 2:15-16.) Finally, Claimant asks that the Court order this claim be arbitrated within 120 days so as to ensure her claim is timely heard. (Id., at 2:19-23.)

Auto insurance policies are required by statute to contain provisions for binding arbitration of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage (“UIM”) claims. (Ins. Code § 11580.2, subs. (f).) Generally, in UIM cases, the insured must “.... formally institute arbitration proceedings by notifying the insurer in writing sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Notice shall be sent to the insurer or to the agent for process designated by the insurer filed with the department.” (Ins. Code § 11580.2 (i)(C).) Of course, a policy of insurance may expand (but not

26CV010729: BANDULA-TALBOT vs STATE FARM INSURANCE 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16C

limit) the notice required to be given under the statute.

Here, Claimant, made an arbitration demand, in writing (sent by certified mail, return receipt requested) on December 11, 2025. (Declaration of Christopher Wood, at ¶ 6, Exhibit 1.) As of the date of filing the motion, State Farm had not agreed to arbitrate the claims, however, as discussed above, State Farm now agrees that arbitration is the proper forum for these claims should the claims not be resolved informally. However, State Farm argues that the motion to compel arbitration is premature, and that the request to appoint an arbitrator is moot.

The Court rejects both arguments. In regards to the latter argument, a motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.5.) Accordingly, the mere fact that the parties have agreed on the arbitrator after the instant motion was filed does not render said motion moot within the meaning of section 1005.5. The Court also finds State Farm’s argument that this motion is premature, unpersuasive, especially given the representations of Claimant’s counsel in reply in regards to the status of discovery in this matter.

Accordingly, Claimant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. This matter is hereby ordered to binding arbitration with Nicholas K. Lowe. The Court declines Claimant’s request that the Court order arbitration to take place within 120 days. The arbitration shall be set expeditiously, but leaves it to the parties and the arbitrator to schedule the arbitration.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

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 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV010729: BANDULA-TALBOT vs STATE FARM INSURANCE 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 16C

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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.

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.