Geoulla v. Cal. Automobile Ins. Co. CA2/5

Filed 5/16/23 Geoulla v. Cal. Automobile Ins. Co. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

DANIEL GEOULLA, B314486

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS170239) v.

CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. B&D Law Group, Mahsa Farid, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Shaver, Korff & Castronovo, Thomas W. Shaver and Tina M. Bhatia, for Defendant and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Daniel Geoulla appeals from an order dismissing an arbitration brought under the Uninsured Motorist Act (Insurance Code section 11580.2 et seq. (section 11580.2)) for failure to conclude the proceeding within the mandatory five-year limitation proscribed by the Act. We reverse and remand with instructions.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Following a rear-end collision with an uninsured motorist, plaintiff demanded arbitration under section 11580.2 seeking uninsured motorist benefits from defendant.1 During the next five years, the parties selected an arbitrator, propounded multiple rounds of discovery, took depositions, and engaged in extensive law and motion practice; but they did not schedule an arbitration hearing within that time. Because plaintiff failed to conclude the arbitration within the five-year limitation proscribed by section 11580.2, subdivision (i) (as extended for six months by Emergency Rules 9 and 10), defendant filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding. In his opposition, plaintiff conceded that the extended five-year period had run and that his attorneys had miscalendared the deadline. He maintained, however, that the five-year limitation should be extended because defendant had engaged in discovery abuses. According to plaintiff, that conduct estopped defendant from relying on the five-year statute and otherwise made it impossible,