Burton v. Cruise
190 Cal. App. 4th 939
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Burton and Cruise signed an arbitration agreement for medical malpractice claims.
- Burton sued Cruise in April 2008 and did not seek arbitration at that time.
- Case management in July 2008 set a jury trial date and Burton did not elect arbitration.
- Discovery occurred over six months with expert lists exchanged before February 2009.
- Burton moved to compel arbitration late (March 2009) after opposing counsel’s denial; the court denied it.
- Court applied St. Agnes factors and affirmed waiver due to substantial prejudice and delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of arbitration right by delay? | Burton promptly informed Cruise of arbitration intent early | Burton waited until the eve of trial to seek arbitration | Waiver established by delay and late petition |
| Standard of review and application of St. Agnes factors | Trial court properly applied multifactor test | Factors insufficient or misapplied | Substantial evidence supports waiver under St. Agnes |
| Prejudice to Cruise from delay | No prejudice shown by Burton's conduct | Delay undermined arbitration benefits and increased costs | Prejudice shown; arbitration benefits lost |
| Timeliness of arbitration notice and notice form | Oral notice insufficient under contract | Written notice not provided timely | Arbitration not timely or properly demanded |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California, 31 Cal.4th 1187 (Cal. 2003) (multifactor test for waiver of arbitration; public policy in favor of arbitration)
- Wagner Construction Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp., 41 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2007) (unreasonable delay may constitute waiver; reasonable time depends on context)
- Adolph v. Coastal Auto Sales, Inc., 184 Cal.App.4th 1443 (Cal. App. 2010) (delays in seeking arbitration can amount to prejudice)
- Sobremonte v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 980 (Cal. App. 1998) (major prejudice when petition to arbitrate comes after extensive trial preparation)
- Groom v. Health Net, 82 Cal.App.4th 1189 (Cal. App. 2000) (prejudice may arise when litigation proceeds prior to arbitration; court limitations)
- Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992) (favor arbitration; general policy supporting quick resolution)
- Platt Pacific, Inc. v. Andelson, 6 Cal.4th 307 (Cal. 1993) (waiver as forfeiture arising from nonperformance of required act)