Thompson v. Torres CA1/3

Filed 10/16/13 Thompson v. Torres CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

FERNANDER THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A137482 v. MARIO TORRES et al., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG09456222) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Fernander Thompson, appearing in propria persona, appeals from the denial of his petition to compel arbitration of his uninsured motorist claim against his automobile insurance carrier, respondent State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision and thus shall affirm the order. Background Plaintiff was injured in 2008 while a passenger on an Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit District (AC Transit) bus being operated by defendant Mario Torres. On April 19, 2011, following a jury trial, judgment was entered awarding plaintiff $10,566 in damages ($5,566 in medical expenses and $5,000 in general damages) on his personal injury action against AC Transit and Torres. The judgment apportioned responsibility for the accident and, thus, liability for the general damages, according to the jury’s verdict in equal thirds between AC Transit, Torres and the unknown driver of a car involved in the

1

collision. AC Transit paid plaintiff $8,335 in satisfaction of the share of the judgment for which AC Transit and Torres were responsible.1 In January 2009, plaintiff submitted an uninsured motorist claim under his State Farm insurance policy. In February 2012, State Farm paid plaintiff $11,029 on the claim. The letter accompanying the payment stated, “Our efforts to resolve this claim through negotiation were not successful and appear to have reached an impasse. Under these circumstances, we are advancing the amount of our initial offer . . . . [¶] This payment is made in advance without prejudicing your right to receive a higher amount in the future through continuing negotiation or alternative means of resolution.” On June 14, 2012, plaintiff sought leave from the court to amend his complaint in the personal injury action to assert an uninsured motorist claim against respondents State Farm and its employee, Marcie Marquez, and to compel arbitration of the new claim.2 The court denied the motions as untimely and without merit. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his petition to compel arbitration. Discussion Plaintiff apparently believes State Farm should have paid him the full $50,000 limit on his policy. His petition to compel was filed to force State Farm into arbitration to recover the additional amount he claims over and above the amount he has already received. His appellate briefing, however, is completely unintelligible and it is impossible to decipher on what grounds he asserts the trial court’s order should be reversed.