MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Condition or Lift Stay in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff in pro per Autra Minnifield’s (“Plaintiff”) “motion for order to condition or lift stay based on lack of provider-confirmed active arbitration forum” is DENIED.

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 PowerSchool Group LLC’s (“Defendant”) then moved to compel arbitration and stay the Court action. On April 8, 2025, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay this 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 that 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.”

Since then, Plaintiff has moved three times to lift the stay. On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay and request judicial oversight. Plaintiff’s motion was denied on June 12, 2025.

Plaintiff withdrew her arbitration demand with the AAA on June 23, 2025. (Declaration of Autra Minnifield (“Minnifield Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) AAA formally administratively closed the arbitration file on July 23, 2025. (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. 3.)

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Condition or Lift Stay in Department 16C

Plaintiff then 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 a 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.

On February 23, 2026, Plaintiff moved to lift the stay pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 and 1008(a). Plaintiff’s motion was denied on March 19, 2026.

Plaintiff now moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 for “an order conditioning any continued stay on Defendant substantiating, through written AAA confirmation, that this matter is in active arbitration administration, or, alternatively, lifting the stay if Defendant cannot make that showing by a date certain.” (Notice of Motion at 2:4-8.) Plaintiff further states that she “seeks an order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to provide competent written confirmation from AAA showing whether this matter has been reopened, must be refiled, has been assigned to an arbitrator, has entered arbitrator selection, has been set for a management conference, has received a scheduling order, or has otherwise been restored to active administration.

If Defendant cannot provide provider-confirmed proof of an active arbitration forum by the Court’s deadline, Plaintiff requests that the stay be lifted.” (Notice of Motion at 2:13-19.) Plaintiff states that this “motion is not about dissatisfaction with arbitration. It is about preventing a stayed civil case from remaining frozen without an active arbitration proceeding.” (Motion at 5:13-15.)

Plaintiff states the Court’s March 19, 2026, Order identified the absence of a developed post-closure record regarding whether Plaintiff attempted to reinitiate arbitration and whether AAA would proceed, and that record is now developed. She asserts AAA has communicated about reopening, but has not restored the closed matter to active administration. After the March 19 ruling, AAA requested the parties’ positions regarding reopening. Defendant stated it was agreeable to reopening if that was how Plaintiff wished to proceed.

Communications then followed regarding reopening, next steps, fees, formal reactivation, case-file records, and written confirmation of the arbitration’s current administrative status. (Minnifield Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.) However, as of the date the motion was filed, Plaintiff asserts AAA has not issued a formal reactivation notice, confirmed active administration, identified required fees or deposits, restarted arbitrator selection, assigned an arbitrator, set a management conference, issued a scheduling order, or provided any provider-confirmed next step showing that arbitration is presently being administered. (Minnifield Decl., ¶¶ 10–11.)

In opposition, Defendant asserts this motion is completely unnecessary and that the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Condition or Lift Stay in Department 16C

lack of a response from the AAA is because Plaintiff miskeyed the AAA case manager’s email address in the “To:” field of her message when confirming her agreement to reopen the arbitration, and that when Defendant discovered the typo on May 18, 2026, it immediately forwarded Plaintiff’s messages to the AAA case manager’s correct email address and the parties are awaiting the AAA’s response. (Declaration of Eric M. Lloyd (“Lloyd Decl.”), ¶¶ 6-7, 10-16, Exs. A-C, E-H.) The Court need not delve into the details here, except to state that Plaintiff’s typo started on March 18, 2026, and continued until discovered by Defendant on May 18, and Plaintiff does not dispute the error on reply. Plaintiff’s error obviously contributed to Plaintiff not receiving a response from AAA, which lack of response is largely the reason this motion was filed in the first place.

If the Court were to stop here, it would conclude there is no basis to award the requested relief because the purported delay in reopening the arbitration appears to have arisen due to Plaintiff’s own actions in mistyping the email address for the AAA case manager in multiple emails, and the parties have now properly emailed Mr. AAA Assistant Vice President Jonathan Weed, requested that the arbitration be reopened, and are awaiting a response. However, additional evidence has recently been submitted by Plaintiff evidencing there is absolutely no need for the requested relief at this time.

Plaintiff filed her supplemental notice and declaration on June 8, 2026, wherein she indicates Mr. Weed replied to the parties on June 4, 2026, and stated the arbitration has been reopened, no additional fees or filings are required at this time, the matter is now active, AAA will appoint an arbitrator by June 9 if the parties do not reach an agreement, and AAA is gathering the certified documents Plaintiff requested.

Thus, the arbitration has been reopened and 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 the 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022311: MINNIFIELD vs POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Condition or Lift Stay in Department 16C

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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/courtreporters/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.