Guideone Mutual Ins. Co. v. Seielstad

Filing 13

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/5/2017 DENYING 5 Motion to Stay Arbitration Proceedings without prejudice. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

GUIDEONE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No. 2:16-cv-00752-TLN-AC

CHARLES SEIELSTAD,
Defendant.

16
17
18

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff GuideOne Mutual Insurance

19

Company’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Stay of Arbitration Proceedings. (ECF No. 5.) Defendant

20

Charles Seielstad (“Defendant”) opposes the motion. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF

21

No. 7.) The Court has carefully considered the arguments raised by the parties. For the reasons

22

set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

23

I.

24

This is a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief about the legal effect of a worker’s

INTRODUCTION

25

compensation settlement on an insurer’s obligation to pay additional funds to that injured worker

26

pursuant to a separate uninsured motorist policy.1 Plaintiff — the insurer — acknowledges that

27
28

1

The factual and procedural background is not materially in dispute as it relates to the instant motion.

1

1

Defendant — the insured — timely demanded uninsured motorist arbitration proceedings (the

2

“UM Arbitration”) with Plaintiff pursuant to that uninsured motorist policy. (Compl., ECF No. 1

3

at ¶ 12; ECF No. 5-1 at 2.) It is not disputed that the parties have agreed to arbitrate. The

4

question is when the UM Arbitration will go forward. Plaintiff has filed the instant motion to stay

5

the UM Arbitration pending the resolution of this action. (ECF No. 5-1 at 4–5.)

6

II.

ANALYSIS

7

Plaintiff contends this Court has authority to stay the UM Arbitration pending the outcome

8

of this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2. (ECF No. 5-1 at 4–5.)

9

However, by its text, § 1281.2 does not apply to the circumstances of this case. Consequently,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

the motion must be denied.
Section 1281.2 provides in relevant part:
On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the
existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that
a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall
order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy
....
If the court determines that there are other issues between the
petitioner and the respondent which are not subject to arbitration
and which are the subject of a pending action or special proceeding
between the petitioner and the respondent and that a determination
of such issues may make the arbitration unnecessary, the court may
delay its order to arbitrate until the determination of such other
issues or until such earlier time as the court specifies.
If the court determines that a party to the arbitration is also a party
to litigation in a pending court action or special proceeding with a
third party . . . ., the court . . . may order arbitration among the
parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court
action or special proceeding pending the outcome of the arbitration
proceeding; or . . . may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the
court action or special proceeding.

23

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.2 (emphasis added).

24

Plaintiff has not identified any relevant “third party” so the final paragraph of the above-

25

quoted paragraphs does not apply. Consequently, § 1281.2 is not implicated unless the motion

26

comes within the meaning of the second of the above-quoted paragraphs. It does not. Neither the

27

Plaintiff nor Defendant refuses to arbitrate. Plaintiff has not petitioned this Court for an order to

28

compel arbitration. For these two reasons it is clear Plaintiff is not a “petitioner” within the
2

1

meaning of this section. Moreover, the second of the above-quoted paragraphs says nothing

2

about enjoining a proceeding the Court has not been asked to order in the first place. It speaks

3

only of a court delaying its own order to compel arbitration — which Plaintiff does not seek here.

4

III.

5

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Arbitration Proceedings is

6
7
8

CONCLUSION

hereby DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 5, 2017

9
10

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3