Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings
2025CLCL043809: SYNCHRONY BANK vs RONALD MERINO 05/01/2026 in Department 42 Motion to Compel Arbitration
Motion: Defendant Merinos Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings Tentative Ruling: The Court intends to DENY Defendant Merinos Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, on the ground that moving-party Defendant waived his right to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs counsel to provide notice.
Background: This is a collections case filed on May 8, 2025 for money due on breach of contract, regarding $9,787.18 credit card debt. In pro per Defendant filed his Answer on July 1, 2025, which also included the text of several motions, including a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6), a motion to compel production of documentary evidence, and a Motion to Strike. The Court has already ruled on several of the motions, denying them all. The Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings was filed on February 11, 2026, Opposition papers were filed on March 26, 2026, and while Defendant did not file a Reply, he filed an Affidavit Sworn Statement on April 6, 2026 and on April 17, 2026.
Discussion: Arbitration Standard On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such 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, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement. (Code Civ.
Pro. § 1281.2.). A petition to compel arbitration or to stay proceedings pursuant to CCP §§ 1281.2 and 1281.4 must state, in addition to other required allegations, the provisions of the written agreement and the paragraph that provides for arbitration. The provisions must be stated verbatim, or a copy must be attached to the petition and incorporated by reference. (CRC, rule 3.1330.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.
Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of an agreement to arbitrate covering the dispute. Instead, it argues that Defendants actions in this litigation constitute a waiver of his right to bring the Motion.
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?”
Waiver
2025CLCL043809: SYNCHRONY BANK vs RONALD MERINO
A party waives their right to arbitrate a dispute by virtue of a delay in seeking enforcement of the arbitration agreement. In the past, California courts have found a waiver of the right to demand arbitration in a variety of contexts, ranging from situations in which the party seeking to compel arbitration has previously taken steps inconsistent with an intent to invoke arbitration, to instances in which the petitioning party has unreasonably delayed in undertaking the procedure. (St. Agnes Medical Center v.
Pacificare (2003), 31 Cal.4th 1187, 1196, internal citations omitted.) In evaluating whether the right to compel arbitration has been waived, courts consider: (1) whether the party's actions are inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; (2) whether the litigation machinery has been substantially invoked and the parties were well into preparation of a lawsuit before the party notified the opposing party of an intent to arbitrate; (3) whether a party either requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or delayed for a long period before seeking a stay; (4) whether a defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking for a stay of the proceedings; (5) whether important intervening steps e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not available in arbitration had taken place; and (6) whether the delay affected, misled, or prejudiced the opposing party. (Id. at p. 1193, internal quotation marks and alterations omitted.)
While before July 2024, a party seeking to establish waiver was specifically required to show some prejudice resulting from the other party's delay in seeking arbitration, in Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 562, 582, the California Supreme Court found that [b]ecause the state law arbitration-specific prejudice requirement finds no support in statutory language or legislative history, we now abrogate it. The Supreme Court further stated: In sum, we conclude that the procedural rules of the CAA, like those of the FAA, are grounded in a policy of treating arbitration [agreements] like all others, not one preferring arbitration to litigation. (Citation omitted.)
Accordingly, in determining whether a party to an arbitration agreement has lost the right to arbitrate by litigating the dispute, a court should treat the arbitration agreement as it would any other contract, without applying any special rules based on a policy favoring arbitration. That is, courts should apply the same procedural rules that they would apply to any other contract. [...] To establish waiver, there is no requirement that the party opposing enforcement of the contractual right demonstrate prejudice or otherwise show harm resulting from the waiving party's conduct.
In Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 CalApp4th 436, 452453, defendant waited four months before expressing any desire to arbitrate, defendant litigated the merits of plaintiff's claim by filing multiple demurrers and motions to strike, participating in discovery, and requiring plaintiff to fully brief three motions to compel. Defendant then waited almost another month before filing its motion to compel arbitration. During that month, defendant forced plaintiff to file discovery motions or risk waiver of the right to obtain such discovery.
In addition to defendant's conduct being inconsistent with the intent to arbitrate, it caused a
2025CLCL043809: SYNCHRONY BANK vs RONALD MERINO
prejudicial delay to plaintiff. As a result, defendant was found to have waived its right to demand arbitration. In Guess”, Inc. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 553, the court found waiver when the demand for arbitration had been deferred for three months, when the party moving for arbitration did not plead its purported right to arbitrate as an affirmative defense, and when the party participated in discovery, objected to interrogatories and document demands, and attended depositions. (Id. at p. 558.)
The court also found that the moving partys conduct had prejudiced the party being compelled to arbitrate. (Ibid.) Here, Defendant has waived his right to arbitration by taking steps inconsistent with intent to arbitrate as outlined in the declaration of Plaintiffs counsel James Long. Over the past 9 months since he filed his Answer, Defendant has engaged in fairly substantial litigation activities, including filing an Answer, propounding to and responding to discovery, and filing numerous motions with the Court.
The motion is denied.
3