Yazdi v. San Diego County Credit Union CA4/1

Filed 3/21/25 Yazdi v. San Diego County Credit Union CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SHIVA YAZDI, D083835

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021- SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT 00053145-CU-WT-CTL) UNION,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Katherine A. Bacal, Judge. Affirmed. Jackson Lewis, Phong L. Tran, Erica T. Khaine and Dylan B. Carp for Defendant and Appellant. Sani Law, Sam Sani and Tilak Gupta for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2021, Shiva Yazdi filed suit against San Diego County Credit Union (SDCCU) for disputes arising from her employment by SDCCU. Although the court had granted a motion to compel arbitration based on an agreement between the parties, Yazdi later moved to vacate the court’s arbitration order on the grounds that SDCCU’s failure to timely pay the arbitration fee was a material breach of the arbitration agreement. Applying Code of Civil

Procedure section 1281.981 and Doe v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 346, 350 (Doe), the court concluded that SDCCU had waived the right to arbitrate by failing to make timely payment of the arbitration fees. SDCCU argues on appeal that the court erred because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies, rather than the statutes relied upon by the trial court, and because the FAA preempts the state statutes. It also contends that its payment was timely made. We conclude that SDCCU’s arguments regarding the FAA are forfeited, because they were not raised below; and that the court did not err in concluding that SDCCU’s untimely payment breached the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Complaint and Proceedings in Arbitration Yazdi sued SDCCU for various claims arising from her prior employment with SDCCU, including claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. SDCCU moved to compel arbitration, relying upon agreements between the parties, and the court granted the motion and stayed the matter pending arbitration. The facts underlying SDCCU’s payment of the arbitration fees are undisputed in relevant part. On May 16, 2023, JAMS (the arbitrator) sent a “Notice of Hearing with Invoice” to “all parties,” setting forth the arbitration hearing dates and directing the payment of fees, which were “due upon receipt.” The invoice was directed to SDCCU’s counsel, Paul Sorrentino, for fees in the amount of $73,600. The invoice offered options to pay by standard mail, overnight mail, or online. On June 15, 2023, SDCCU sent a check for