Odenwald v. Frederickson CA2/6

Filed 4/15/25 Odenwald v. Frederickson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ANTHONY ODENWALD, 2d Civ. No. B335026 (Super. Ct. No. 23CVP-0228) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

ROGER B. FREDERICKSON et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

The trial court denied defendant’s petition to compel arbitration on the ground that a party to the arbitration is also a party to a pending court action arising out of the same transaction and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings. (Code Civ. Proc.,1 § 1281.2, subd. (c).) We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure

unless stated otherwise.

FACTS Anthony Odenwald claims he was injured when he tripped and fell over a defect in the public sidewalk in front of the First Presbyterian Church of Templeton (Church). Odenwald retained Roger Frederickson and Frederickson Hamilton, LLP (collectively Frederickson) to represent him in an action to recover damages for his injuries. The retainer agreement contained a provision requiring arbitration of any dispute between Frederickson and Odenwald. Frederickson filed an action against the Church.2 The Church’s answer to the complaint alleged defenses of comparative negligence, acts of others, and several liability for non-economic damages. (Civ. Code, § 1431.2.) Frederickson also submitted a government tort claim to the County of San Luis Obispo (County). The County denied the claim, but Frederickson never filed an action against the County. The statute of limitations for an action against the County expired. Odenwald obtained a new attorney to continue the action against the Church and to file a malpractice action against Frederickson for failure to sue the County. Motion to Compel Arbitration Frederickson responded to the malpractice action with a motion to compel arbitration. The motion was based on the arbitration provision in the retainer agreement between Frederickson and Odenwald. Odenwald opposed the motion on the ground that both the Church and malpractice actions are pending and have common