Thompson v. Miller CA3

Filed 4/26/21 Thompson v. Miller CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

ALLEN THOMPSON, JR., C082846

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201200128943CUPNGDS) v.

JOHN C. MILLER, JR.,

Defendant and Respondent.

After his arbitration case was dismissed with prejudice, plaintiff Allen Thompson, Jr. petitioned the superior court, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1288,1 to vacate the arbitrator’s ruling. The superior court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition because Thompson’s petition was filed well outside the 100-day period to timely

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure in effect at the time of the action.

1

petition under section 1288. Thompson now appeals, asking this court to vacate the arbitrator’s ruling. We affirm. BACKGROUND The Tentative Ruling Prior to the superior court’s ruling, which defendant appeals from, the trial court posted a tentative ruling. The tentative ruling recounted that on June 4, 2015, the arbitrator signed an order granting defendant John C. Miller, Jr.’s, motion for terminating sanctions and dismissing Thompson’s complaint, based on Thompson’s failure to provide discovery responses. Thompson was served with a copy of the order on June 9, 2015, and eight months later, on February 18, 2016, he petitioned the superior court, under section 1288, to vacate the arbitration award.2 The tentative ruling concluded that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition because it was filed and served far outside the 100-day window to petition under section 1288. And in any event, Thompson’s petition failed to establish, with competent evidence, valid grounds to vacate or correct the award.3 The Hearing At the hearing on Thompson’s petition, Thompson explained he had suffered a stroke at the time he was supposed to appear for a telephone hearing with the arbitrator. The arbitrator dismissed the case with prejudice and refused to reinstate the case when Thomson showed doctors’ notes.