SHARON LACOURLEY ET AL VS. AIRBNB,INC. ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24619210 - October 15, 2025 Hearing date: October 15, 2025 Case number: CGC24619210 Case title: SHARON LACOURLEY ET AL VS. AIRBNB,INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24619210 | Case Title: | | SHARON LACOURLEY ET AL VS. AIRBNB,INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-15 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Withdraw From Arbitration And Lift Stay, Mpa | Rulings: | | Matter on calendar for Wednesday, October 15, 2025, Line 6, PLAINTIFF SHARON LACOURLEY, MARC LACOURLEY, JORDAN LACOURLEY's Motion To Withdraw From Arbitration And Lift Stay.

Plaintiffs' Motion To Withdraw From Arbitration is DENIED.

While courts formerly applied strict enforcement of a 30-day grace period for nonpayment of arbitration fees (Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020) 479 F.Supp.3d 834, 840), the California Supreme Court in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, 315 held that applying strict enforcement for a failure to timely provide arbitration fees impermissibly singles out arbitration agreements from all other contracts by not applying a good faith standard. Companies and employers are not to be denied their contractual right to arbitration "where nonpayment of fees results from a good faith mistake, inadvertence, or other excusable neglect." (Hohenshelt, supra, at 1).

Given that the missed payment was the result of an administrative error made in good faith, Defendant's failure falls within the scope of "mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect" as provided by 473(b).

The Court previously granted Defendant Airbnb's motion to compel arbitration on March 14, 2025 as to Plaintiffs, Marc LaCourly and Jordan LaCourly and approximately four months, on July 29, 2025, Marc and Jordan LaCourley submitted their claim to the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). The parties then arbitrated the dispute. On September 19, 2025, the parties received correspondence from AAA stating that arbitration would not move forward due to nonpayment. Defense counsel, however, did not receive the invoice as AAA never directly sent it to Defendants or Defendant's counsel nor was it added to counsel's AAA account. (Prodromo Decl. at 6.)

Defense counsel immediately notified both AAA and Plaintiffs' counsel of the issue and confirmed Airbnb's intent to cure the oversight and proceed with the previously-ordered Arbitration. The matter was promptly corrected and AAA resumed administration. In light of the correction and the administrative mishap, the court finds that Defendants did not forfeit their rights enforce the arbitration agreement and therefore, this motion is denied.