MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 08/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Stay of Proceedings Pursuant to CCP 1281.97 and 1281.99 in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

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-cagov.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.

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

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 08/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Stay of Proceedings Pursuant to CCP 1281.97 and 1281.99 in Department 54

or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Autra Minnifield’s motion to vacate stay pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97 and 1291.99 and for sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration against Defendant Powerschool Group, LLC (“Defendant”) 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 this action. In granting Defendant’s motion on April 8, 2025, 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.” (April 8, 2025 Order.) On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to lift stay and request for judicial oversight. Plaintiff’s motion was denied on June 12, 2025. Plaintiff withdrew her arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association on June 23, 2025. Plaintiff now brings a motion to vacate stay pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97 and 1291.99 and for sanctions. Plaintiff argues that California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.97 requires an employer to pay its arbitration fees within 30 days of the due date (by September 19, 2024) or forfeit its right to compel arbitration.

While Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to meet this deadline, she presents no proof that Defendant failed to pay on time. Moreover, in opposition, Defendant avers that the fees were timely paid on September 19, 2024 via ACH. (Lloyd Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E.) Furthermore, after initially advising the parties that AAA had not received the fee as of the morning of Monday, September 23, 2024, AAA just over 90 minutes later, apologized and confirmed receipt of the fee, stating, “Due to the weekend, [our finance team was] not able to apply [the payment] until this morning.” (Lloyd Decl. ¶ 7; Minnifield Decl.

Ex. N.2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 08/21/2025 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Stay of Proceedings Pursuant to CCP 1281.97 and 1281.99 in Department 54

Minnifield’s request to lift the stay based on the timing of Defendant’s payment of arbitration fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97, and for corresponding sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99, is DENIED in its entirety. 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’s counsel 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’s counsel 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.