IN THE MATTER OF: SARAH SABHARWAL

26CV014372: IN THE MATTER OF: SARAH SABHARWAL 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

26CV014372: IN THE MATTER OF: SARAH SABHARWAL 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Claimant Sarah Sabharwal’s (“Claimant”) motion to compel arbitration in an underinsured motorist action is DENIED as follows.

This matter arises from an automobile collision that occurred on January 29, 2025, in which the at-fault motorist was an underinsured driver. Claimant now moves to compel arbitration and further requests that the Court order arbitration to take place within 60 to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV014372: IN THE MATTER OF: SARAH SABHARWAL 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8C

90 days of the hearing date.

Respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”) has filed an opposition wherein Farmers argues that the “parties do agree to arbitrate this matter” and have even “agreed to appointment of Nicholas Lowe, Esq.” as an arbitrator. (Opposition at 1:25- 27.) Indeed, Farmers contends that “[t]he disagreement between the parties is not whether arbitration should occur” but rather “concerns Claimant’s request that the Court impose an expedited arbitration deadline despite ongoing discovery.” (Id., at 3:15-18.)

Accordingly, Farmers argues, because it has not refused to arbitrate this case, and has even expressly agreed to an arbitrator, there is no dispute and thus this motion is moot as to arbitrator selection. Farmers further contends that Claimants request for courtimposed deadline of 60-90 days is arbitrary, not based on any policy provision requiring such a deadline, and thus should be denied. (Id., at 7:3-11.)

In reply, Claimant indicates that it has provided Farmers with responses to discovery, which included all of Claimant’s medical records and bills currently in Claimant’s possession and further outlined all of Claimant’s medical providers and information necessary for Respondent’s subpoena for medical records. (Reply Declaration of Christopher Wood [“Wood Reply Decl.”] at ¶ 2, 3; see also Reply at 2:8-16.) Claimant adds that she has also now been deposed by Respondent’s counsel and that her counsel will agree to waive time on Respondent’s subpoena for Claimant’s medical records to expedite the process. (Id., at ¶ 3.)

Claimant also reiterates that the parties have already agreed to retain Mr. Lowe as Arbitrator. (Reply at 2:22-23.) Finally, Claimant asks that the Court order this claim proceed to arbitration within 120 days (in contrast to her request in her moving papers that the arbitration be ordered to take place within 60 to 90 days). (Id., at 3:5-6.) Claimant does not argue that this deadline is based on any policy provision requiring such a deadline.

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 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 April 26, 2026. (Declaration of Christopher Wood, at ¶ 6, Exhibit 1.) However, Farmers agreed to arbitration and the selection of Mr. Lowe as an

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV014372: IN THE MATTER OF: SARAH SABHARWAL 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 8C

arbitrator on July 22, 2026 – prior to the date Claimant filed this motion. (Declaration of Sasi Sheva [“Sheva Decl.”] at ¶ 3.) Accordingly, because Farmers had already agreed to arbitration, and indeed had agreed to Mr. Lowe as an arbitrator, prior to Claimant filing this motion, the Court agrees with Farmers that this motion is MOOT and is thus DENIED on that basis.

To the extent Claimant also requests that the Court order arbitration to take place within 120 days that request is DENIED. Since Farmers has indicated it is amenable to arbitration “around March 2027” the Court orders that arbitration in this matter shall commence no later than March 8, 2027 unless the parties agree in writing to a different date.

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