IN RE: CESAR LECAROS

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CPF26519709 - June 1, 2026 Hearing date: June 1, 2026 Case number: CPF26519709 Case title: IN RE: CESAR LECAROS Case Number: | | CPF26519709 | Case Title: | | IN RE: CESAR LECAROS | Court Date: | | 2026-06-01 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Arbitration; Request For Appointment For Arbitrator | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, June 1, 2026, Line 2, PETITIONER CESAR LECAROS' Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Arbitration; Request For Appointment For Arbitrator.

Petitioner Cesar Lecaros's motion to compel arbitration and appoint arbitrator is continued for further hearing to July 2, 2026.

Lecaros was formerly employed by respondent Horizon Services, Inc. and seeks to arbitrate disputes related to his placement on administrative leave and subsequent termination. Lecaros seeks an order compelling arbitration before JAMS. Horizon acknowledges an arbitration agreement and agrees that the dispute is arbitrable pursuant to the agreement, but contends that Lecaros's motion is premature because the parties have not adequately met and conferred about the selection of an arbitrator or arbitration organization.

The arbitration agreement at issue (Ex. A to Petn.) states: "All arbitrations shall be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator through a separate third-party arbitrator and/or arbitration entity to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. The arbitrator shall be selected by mutual agreement of both You and the Organization or in accordance with then-applicable rules of the arbitration entity mutually selected by You and the Organization."

Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1281.6, states in relevant part, "[i]f the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed. If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, . . ., the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator."

The court agrees this dispute is not yet ripe. The parties are ordered to meet and confer within two weeks of this order to attempt to reach agreement concerning either an arbitration entity (which will likely have its own arbitrator selection process) or an individual arbitrator.

If the parties cannot agree, they are each ordered to provide the court with a list of five potential arbitrators. The list shall include the arbitrator's website or biographical information. The list shall be filed with the court by June 18, 2026. The parties may file objections to the other side's list of arbitrators by June 25, 2026.

To the extent Lecaros's motion seeks additional remedies such as sanctions or adverse inferences, the court denies the request. These are matters that may be properly directed to the arbitrator once the arbitrator is appointed or agreed by the parties. (Part 1 of 2, the tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |