MRV Marketing v. Sonenshine CA4/3

Filed 1/28/26 MRV Marketing v. Sonenshine CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MRV MARKETING, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G064003

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023- 01302917) SHEILA PRELL SONENSHINE, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig L. Griffin, Judge. Affirmed. Request for judicial notice granted in part and denied in part. DRE and Darren M. Richie for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Long & Levit and Jessica R. MacGregor for Defendant and Respondent.

We begin by echoing the words of the trial judge in this matter: “The present case is the poster child for arbitrator immunity.” MRV Marketing, LLC (MRV), Reynaldo Rivera, and Global Dairy Services, Inc. (collectively, plaintiffs) herein were parties to an arbitration before JAMS. They were offered a list of potential arbitrators whom they could, in the vernacular, “strike and rank.” Plaintiffs reviewed profiles on the JAMS website and submitted their list by preference. Honorable Sheila Prell Sonenshine (Ret.) was plaintiffs’ fifth choice and was chosen as the arbitrator. Things did not go as plaintiffs had expected, and plaintiffs decided to do more research into Justice Sonenshine’s background. They discovered information that had not been disclosed on Justice Sonenshine’s JAMS profile—information which, they felt, reflected on Justice Sonenshine’s competence to serve as arbitrator, and which they would have liked to have known. After failing to have Justice Sonenshine disqualified from the case, they sued her for false advertising and other claims. We hold arbitral immunity bars all of the claims in the plaintiffs’ pleading. The cases are clear the scope of California’s common law arbitral immunity is broad and covers all functions integrally related to the arbitration process, including disclosures and administrative tasks. We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling sustaining Justice Sonenshine’s demurrer without leave to amend. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs were the named respondents in an arbitration proceeding before JAMS entitled DeJesse v. MRV Marketing, LLC et al., which commenced in 2021. The arbitration pertained to an action brought by