Howitson v. Evans Hotels CA4/1

Filed 10/20/25 Howitson v. Evans Hotels CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CHRISTINA HOWITSON, D085078

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020- 00026768-CU-OE-CTL) EVANS HOTELS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Matthew C. Braner, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Barnes & Thornburg, Mark W. Wallin and Michael P. Witczak, for Defendants and Appellants. Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim, Carolyn H. Cottrell, Ori Edelstein, and Robert E. Morelli, III, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Christina Howitson invoked Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98 to extricate her claims against Evans Hotels, LLC and The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, L.P. (collectively, Hotel) from arbitration and return them to court when Hotel failed to pay arbitration fees within 30 days of their due date. Hotel contends, among other things, section 1281.98—as part of the

California Arbitration Act (§ 1280 et seq.)—does not apply here because the parties’ arbitration agreement is governed by the substantive and procedural provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). We agree with Hotel, and thus we reverse the court’s order granting Howitson’s section 1281.98 motion and the corresponding monetary sanctions awarded. I. Hotel hired Howitson as a service worker, and Howitson signed an arbitration agreement with Hotel. The agreement states it “will be governed by, interpreted, and enforced in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.” Later, Howitson sued Hotel under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) for Labor Code violations. Based on the parties’ stipulation, the trial court compelled Howitson’s individual PAGA claims to arbitration and stayed them in court pending arbitration. According to Hotel, the parties have engaged in “substantial discovery” in arbitration, with Howitson serving interrogatories and requests for production and taking at least four depositions. At one point, the arbitrator issued Hotel an invoice for $20,000 “‘due upon receipt’” as a retainer. When Hotel did not pay the retainer within 30 days, Howitson moved the trial court under section 1281.98 to lift the stay and reinstate her claims in court. She also sought monetary sanctions under sections 1281.98(c)(1) and 1281.99(a). Hotel opposed the motion on several grounds, including that section 1281.98 “does not apply” because the arbitration agreement “is governed by the substantive and procedural laws of [the] FAA.” At the motion hearing, Howitson’s counsel agreed the arbitration agreement selects the FAA as the governing law.