MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Lift Stay and Request for Judicial Oversight in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff in pro per Autra Minnifield’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to lift stay and request for judicial oversight is DENIED.

On April 8, 2025, this Court granted defendant PowerSchool Group LLC’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel arbitration and stay this action. Plaintiff filed this motion eight days later.

By way of background, Plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) on August 9, 2024. Three months later Plaintiff filed this action. Defendant then moved to compel arbitration and stay the Court action. In granting Defendant’s motion, the Court concluded a stay would promote judicial efficiency, prevent the risk of conflicting rulings, and preserve the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

In opposition to the motion to compel arbitration and stay, Plaintiff asserted that Defendant and the AAA had acted improperly by wrongfully delaying arbitration and the payment of fees, requesting extensions of time to respond to the arbitration demand, failing to meaningfully engage in the selection of an arbitrator, and engaging in other purported delay tactics. She further contended the AAA had improperly extended Defendant’s deadlines and ignored her objections. In evaluating those arguments, the Court found: “Such assertions are irrelevant to the Court’s evaluation as to whether a stay is appropriate at this time and Plaintiff cannot, by way of her opposition, seek affirmative relief based upon any purported breach of the arbitration agreement by Defendant. If Plaintiff seeks such relief she must do so by way of a properly noticed motion.”

Plaintiff’s notice of motion for this instant motion states: “This Motion is made pursuant to the Court’s April 8, 2025 Minute Order, which authorized Plaintiff to bring any concerns regarding arbitration delay, arbitrator misconduct, or procedural abuse through a formal noticed motion.” (Notice of Motion at 2:8-11.) Plaintiff raises the same arguments with respect to purported misconduct by Defendant and the AAA as she did in opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.

Plaintiff’s main complaint appears to be that the AAA improperly appointed Linda McPharlin without proper disclosures and ignored Plaintiff’s objection. Yet, as pointed out by Defendant, in light of Plaintiff’s objections, AAA appointed an alternative arbitrator, Anthony R. Strauss, on May 5, 2025. (Declaration of Kyle W. Owen (“Owen Decl.”) ¶ 10.) Plaintiff also objected to the appointment of Mr. Strauss and, as a result, Defendant asked AAA to promptly appoint a new arbitrator and schedule an arbitration management conference. (Owen Decl. ¶¶ 11, 12, 19, Ex.

Q.)

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Lift Stay and Request for Judicial Oversight in Department 54

Plaintiff then states she “does not seek to vacate the arbitration agreement at this time” and claims that she “seeks only a fair and timely process.” (Motion at 6:1-2.) In conclusion, she asserts that she “requests that the court lift the stay to restore judicial oversight over this matter.” (Motion at 6:24.) She continues “Should the AAA forum continue to operate in this manner, Plaintiff reserves the right to move for a full return to court jurisdiction.” (Motion at 7:8-9.) It is unclear the exact relief Plaintiff seeks because her motion implies that she wants arbitration to continue, but with some form of unspecified judicial oversight from this Court. Plaintiff does not explain how the “judicial intervention” she seeks would manifest in practice, but more importantly, no legal authority is cited supporting an award of the relief Plaintiff seeks.

Defendant opposes and argues that Plaintiff’s motion is premised upon her unsupported claims that both it and the AAA are frustrating her right to a neutral arbitration and engaging in purported delays, and these issues fall within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. The Court agrees.

While the Court maintains jurisdiction over the matter pending the conclusion of the arbitration, the Court’s ability to intervene in the arbitration is limited. Where, as here, a petition to compel arbitration has been granted and the action stayed, “the action at law sits in the twilight zone of abatement with the trial court retaining merely vestigial jurisdiction over matters submitted to arbitration. During that time, under its ‘vestigial jurisdiction’, the court may: appoint arbitrators if the method selected by the parties fails; grant a provisional remedy ‘but only upon the ground that the award to which an applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without provisional relief’; and confirm, correct or vacate the arbitration award.

Absent an agreement to withdraw the controversy from arbitration, however, no other judicial act is authorized.” (MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 644-645 [internal citations omitted].) The purpose of this stay is to “protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until the arbitration is resolved.” (Id. at p. 660.) Nevertheless, the trial court retains discretion to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration only under circumstances in which lifting the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. (Ibid.)

Once a trial court stays a matter pending arbitration, “[i]t is the job of the arbitrator, not the court, to resolve all questions needed to determine the controversy,” including questions of procedure, discovery, and delay. (Titan/Value Equities Group v. Superior Court (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 488–89; see Byerly v. Sale (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1312, 1316 (“[O]nly the arbitrator should determine whether there has been an unreasonable delay in prosecution which would justify dismissal.”) “[W]hether a party is frustrating the other party’s right to arbitration is a question for the arbitrator, not the trial

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Lift Stay and Request for Judicial Oversight in Department 54

court, to resolve.” (See MKJA, Inc., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at 659.) “[W]hile a trial court decides whether the right to arbitrate has been waived by delay in connection with the initial petition, any waiver due to delay in the arbitration itself is a matter for the arbitrator to decide.” (Finley v. Saturn of Roseville (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1259.)

Here, the Court lacks the authority to intervene as requested by Plaintiff and provide some form of “judicial oversight” over the arbitration. Plaintiff’s disputes should be addressed by the arbitrator. Further, Plaintiff’s citations to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.97 and 1281.99 are inapposite. Plaintiff cites the foregoing for the position that a “court may lift a stay where arbitration has failed to proceed in a timely and fair manner, or where the administering forum has engaged in procedural misconduct.” (Motion at p. 3.)

However, the statutes concern the procedures for when a party materially breaches an arbitration agreement by failing to timely pay arbitration fees. (See Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 1281.97–1281.99.) Plaintiff does not allege Defendant failed to timely pay any arbitration fees, and to the extent she argues on reply that the matter should be removed from arbitration due to Defendant’s late payment of fees, this argument will not be considered. Points raised for the first time in a reply brief are not considered by the court. (See St.

Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 783; Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 794, fn. 3.)

Plaintiff’s reliance on Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951 is also misplaced because Engalla addressed whether a court may deny a petition to compel arbitration based on alleged fraudulent inducement in the making of the arbitration agreement or by waiver of the agreement to arbitrate.

Finally, Plaintiff cites Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413, to support the contention that “the moving party bears the burden of proving that arbitration remains a fair, neutral, and viable forum.” (Motion at p. 3.) Rosenthal does not stand for that proposition and instead addresses the evidentiary burden a petitioner bears when moving to compel arbitration. (Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 413.)

Plaintiff has also filed an improper and untimely Supplemental Declaration of Autra Minnifield in Support of Motion to Stay on May 22, 2025, which purports to seek different relief than what was originally requested. By way of the supplemental declaration, Plaintiff apparently seeks to completely withdraw this matter from arbitration. There are several reasons why this request cannot be granted. First, there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure allowing for such a filing. Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to alter the relief requested and the grounds upon which she moves, she cannot do so by way of simply filing a supplemental declaration. Third, to the extent the supplemental declaration could operate as a new notice of motion and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Lift Stay and Request for Judicial Oversight in Department 54

motion, it is untimely as it was only filed 15 court days prior to the hearing. Accordingly, the Court declines to consider the improper filing.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff is directed to contact Defendant and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to contact Defendant prior to hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing.

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

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Order to Lift Stay and Request for Judicial Oversight in Department 54

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.