| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Petition For Appointment Of Neutral Arbitrator [Code Civ. Proc. 1281.6]
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CPF25519317 - November 5, 2025 Hearing date: November 5, 2025 Case number: CPF25519317 Case title: IN RE: DAVID SIMKINS Case Number: | | CPF25519317 | Case Title: | | IN RE: DAVID SIMKINS | Court Date: | | 2025-11-05 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Hearing On Petition For Appointment Of Neutral Arbitrator [Code Civ. Proc. 1281.6] | Rulings: | | Matter on calendar for Wednesday, November 5, 2025, Line 11, PETITIONER DAVID SIMKINS' Hearing On Petition For Appointment Of Neutral Arbitrator [Code Civ. Proc. 1281.6].
Deny Simkins' petition for appointment of neutral arbitrator without prejudice to renew based on new or supplemental facts.
Respondents Coinbase, Inc. and Coinbase Global, Inc. (collectively, Coinbase or Respondents) submitted the declaration of Katharine Roin in support of their opposition to the petition. Ms. Roin does not currently represent Coinbase; Respondents' application to admit her as counsel pro hac vice, filed on October 2, 2025, has not been set for hearing. Nevertheless, because 1) Ms. Roin alleges that she has personal knowledge of the pertinent facts, and 2) Petitioner did not object to the contents of her declaration, the court considered this evidence in ruling on the petition.
Respondents demonstrated that the petition filed on September 12, 2025 was incomplete and misleading. Petitioner initially attempted to assign blame for the 16-month delay in selecting an arbitrator entirely to Coinbase without revealing that he himself disqualified 3 of the 8 arbitrators selected by AAA. Respondents assert that they repeatedly tried to resolve the impasse, only to have Petitioner reject or ignore their suggestions. AAA suggested on September 15, 2025 that the parties participate in a "rank and strike" procedure to assist AAA in selecting a neutral arbitrator. Petitioner declined to participate, having already filed this petition asking the court to decide the issue.
The totality of the evidence established that, at least at this juncture, the procedures for selection of a neutral arbitrator have neither been exhausted, nor have they "failed." For this reason, the petition is denied without prejudice to renew based on new or supplemental facts.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) 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.
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?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery 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. =(301/CM) |