MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Lift Stay and Motion Pursuant to CCP 1281.4 and 1008(a) in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Autra Minnifield’s renewed motion to lift stay and motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.4 and 1008(a) is ruled upon as follows.

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 (“AAA”) on June 23, 2025. (Minnifield Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) AAA issued advance notice of administrative closure on July 16, 2025. (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) AAA formally administratively closed the arbitration file on July 23, 2025. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. 3.) No arbitrator was confirmed, no arbitration hearing occurred, and no award issued prior to closure. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff moved to vacate or lift the stay under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.97 and 1281.99. The matter was argued on August 21, 2025, and denied by ruling on submitted matter on August 22, 2025.

Also on August 21, 2025, the Third District Court of Appeal (“3DCA”) stayed this action. On October 6, 2025, the 3DCA lifted that stay.

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Lift Stay and Motion Pursuant to CCP 1281.4 and 1008(a) in Department 54

Plaintiff now moves for the following relief:

1. Lift Stay (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4). An order lifting the stay previously entered under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 because arbitration is not presently “being had.” AAA issued advance notice of closure on July 16, 2025, and administratively closed the file on July 23, 2025. No arbitrator was confirmed, no hearing occurred, and no award issued. (Minnifield Decl. ¶¶ 3–6, Exs. 1– 3.)

2. Alternative Relief if Arbitration Is Ordered to Proceed (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281.4, 1281.6). If the Court determines arbitration remains enforceable, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court issue an order specifying the procedure necessary to ensure arbitration is actually commenced, including: (a) designating which party is responsible for reinitiating arbitration with the provider (including submission of the Court’s order and all required fees); (b) requiring reinitiation within 14 calendar days and requiring proof of provider receipt/acceptance within 21 calendar days; (c) providing that if reinitiation does not occur by the deadline, the stay is lifted and the matter is restored to the active civil calendar; and/or (d) appointing a neutral arbitrator pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.

3. Further Alternative Relief—Fee Timing (If Reached) (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281.97– 1281.99). If the Court reaches fee timing, Plaintiff seeks appropriate relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.97 through 1281.99 based on the statutory record.

4. Renewal (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a)). This renewed motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) based on new and different facts occurring after the Court’s June 12, 2025, ruling—namely, Plaintiff’s June 23, 2025, withdrawal of the arbitration demand and AAA’s July 23, 2025, administrative closure of the arbitration file—facts that did not exist and could not have been presented at the June 12, 2025, hearing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Lift Stay and Motion Pursuant to CCP 1281.4 and 1008(a) in Department 54

(Notice, 2:7 – 3:12.)

Plaintiff seeks an order lifting the stay previously entered under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4, arguing that the arbitration is not presently “being had.”

Defendant opposes the motion. Defendant does not dispute that the arbitration is currently closed, but argues that Plaintiff cannot avoid arbitration by withdrawing her own arbitration demand and causing the arbitration file to be closed.

On reply, Plaintiff argues, “Put simply, Plaintiff is not trying to evade arbitration. Plaintiff is trying to avoid indefinite procedural limbo. Section 1281.4 exists to preserve arbitration while it is actually proceeding, not to suspend a civil case indefinitely after the arbitration Plaintiff initiated has been withdrawn and AAA has closed out its file. Under these circumstances, the Court should either lift the stay or impose enforceable conditions ensuring that arbitration is genuinely recommenced and actively administered.” (Reply, 8:7-12.) Plaintiff further states, “The issue is what the Court should do now that the civil case remains stayed while there is no active, administered arbitration forum presently moving the dispute forward.” (Reply, 8:27 – 9:2.)

Plaintiff further argues that she sought clarification from AAA regarding whether and how the withdrawn matter could be resumed, and avers that AAA’s Employment Filing Team stated that a case may be reopened only within three months of closing and only upon receipt of the filing requirements, and that after three months “the matter must be refiled,” and that AAA further stated that whether the matter may be reopened or instead must be refiled is for the case manager to determine.” (Reply Decl. ¶¶ 11–12, Exs. 8–9.) Plaintiff argues that restarting the matter is not automatic, but instead depends on additional administrative steps, provider-side acceptance, and filing requirements. Plaintiff also argues that the parties’ arbitration agreement limits Plaintiff’s filing obligation to $100, and Plaintiff cannot pay that $100 filing fee. (Reply Decl. ¶ 13; Ex. 4.)

It is Plaintiff who has claims against Defendant. The Court has already ruled that Plaintiff’s claims in this matter are compelled to arbitration. Plaintiff does not, on this motion, dispute that her claims are compelled to arbitration. Plaintiff argues that her claims are not moving forward in arbitration, but that is due to the fact that Plaintiff withdrew her demand. Plaintiff’s argument that she cannot simply reinitiate her claims in arbitration are without evidentiary support. Plaintiff did not submit aby evidence that she cannot reinitiate her arbitration claims, that she was charged an additional $100 in violation of her arbitration agreement, or that said fee, if billed, would not be paid by Defendant. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that she has taken any steps to actually reinitiate her claims with AAA.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Lift Stay and Motion Pursuant to CCP 1281.4 and 1008(a) in Department 54

Finally, Plaintiff notes that the record reflects that Defendant paid its fees to AAA at or near the asserted deadline and argues that multiple procedural efforts by Defendant delayed or impeded forward movement in the arbitration. The Court does not find evidence that Defendant engaged in any willful delay of the arbitration. The only evidence the Court is presented with that shows willful delay of the arbitration is Plaintiff’s own withdrawal of her claims from AAA, and Plaintiff’s failure to take steps to reinitiate her claims with AAA.

The Court finds no legal support or good cause to lift the stay.

Plaintiff next requests that the Court enter a conditional restart order requiring recommencement within a defined timeframe. The Court declines this request. While Plaintiff argues directing Plaintiff to restart arbitration without any enforceable deadline would leave the case in “indefinite limbo,” there is simply no evidence presented in support this conclusion.

The Court need not rule upon whether this motion should be barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a) because it cannot succeed on the merits.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED in its entirety.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Lift Stay and Motion Pursuant to CCP 1281.4 and 1008(a) in Department 54

remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 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.

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