Gastelum v. Remax International, Inc.
244 Cal. App. 4th 1016
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Gastelum sued Remax International, Inc. and broker Jose Garcia-Yanez on multiple employment-related claims, including FEHA causes of action.
- Remax moved to compel arbitration based on an Independent Contractor Agreement; the trial court compelled arbitration as to Remax but denied arbitration as to Garcia-Yanez and stayed the court action under CCP §1281.4.
- Plaintiff filed with the AAA; AAA assessed a $7,000 filing fee (minus a $200 payment). Plaintiff requested Remax pay the remaining fees under Armendariz; Remax refused.
- Because the arbitration fees were unpaid, AAA administratively closed the arbitration. Plaintiff then moved to lift the court stay; the trial court granted the motion.
- Remax and Garcia-Yanez appealed the order lifting the stay. The Court of Appeal held the order was not an appealable order and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an order lifting a litigation stay under CCP §1281.4 immediately appealable? | Gastelum argued lifting the stay was proper because arbitration was terminated when fees were unpaid; did not address appealability. | Defendants contended the lift was functionally equivalent to denying a petition to compel arbitration and thus appealable under CCP §1294(a). | The court held the order lifting the stay (unaccompanied by a motion/petition to compel arbitration or other appealable judgment) is not appealable and dismissed the appeal. |
| Does refusal to pay arbitration fees effectively terminate arbitration and justify lifting the stay? | Plaintiff argued defendants’ refusal to pay fees ended arbitration, permitting the court to lift the stay. | Defendants did not contemporaneously seek relief to reopen or compel arbitration after AAA closed the case. | Court accepted that arbitration was closed but emphasized lack of an appealable order or petition to compel arbitration; did not decide substantive fee-obligation dispute. |
| Is an order granting a motion to compel arbitration appealable? | N/A (plaintiff prevailed on lifting stay) | Defendants implicitly relied on appellate review of arbitration-related orders. | Court reiterated that an order granting a motion to compel arbitration is not immediately appealable. |
| Does Henry v. Alcove control (treating stay-arbitration orders as appealable)? | N/A | Defendants relied on Henry to equate decisions staying arbitration with denials to compel arbitration (appealable). | Court distinguished Henry: Henry involved staying a pending arbitration; here the order lifted a court stay and there was no pending arbitration or petition to compel—so Henry did not make the order appealable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000) (employer required to bear costs unique to arbitration in mandatory employment arbitration agreements)
- Henry v. Alcove Investment, Inc., 233 Cal.App.3d 94 (1991) (an order staying a pending arbitration is the functional equivalent of denying a motion to compel arbitration)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Best Service Co., Inc., 232 Cal.App.4th 650 (2014) (appealability of stay orders under §1294 requires an accompanying petition or motion to compel arbitration)
- MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC, 191 Cal.App.4th 643 (2011) (order lifting stay is reviewable only in connection with another appealable order or judgment)
- Reyes v. Macy’s Inc., 202 Cal.App.4th 1119 (2011) (order granting a motion to compel arbitration is not immediately appealable)