Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine
219 Cal. App. 4th 87
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs, elderly low-income tenants, were represented in the underlying mold contamination case by Quintilone and Callahan with an arbitration-based retainer agreement.
- The arbitration provision was on page eight of a nine-page retainer form, not initialed by clients and not explicitly explained to them.
- Several clients signed after Burrows’ and Susolik’s involvement, but there is no evidence they understood the arbitration clause or its costs.
- Plaintiffs sought to compel arbitration but argued they are indigent and cannot afford upfront arbitration costs; trial court denied their fee-share relief.
- California appellate orders previously compelled arbitration against Callahan; Quintilone’s arbitration petition was affirmed unrevealedly; plaintiffs then sought relief on front-end arbitration costs.
- The trial court remanded on request to determine whether plaintiffs could share the anticipated arbitration costs; the court deferred a decision about Callahan’s payment or waiver options.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indigence excuses upfront arbitration costs | Roldan argues they cannot pay pro rata costs due to forma pauperis status. | Callahan contends arbitration costs are the parties’ responsibility under 1284.2 and should be paid by plaintiffs. | Yes; Court held plaintiffs may be excused from paying upfront costs; Callahan may pay/waive. |
| Callahan’s obligation to advance or waive costs | If plaintiffs cannot pay, arbitration should be waived for those plaintiffs. | Arbitration costs cannot be waived by the court; Callahan must bear costs only if contract supports it. | Callahan may choose to pay the costs or waive arbitration for those plaintiffs. |
| Consolidation consideration if some waivers occur | Costs disparity may force consolidation to avoid conflicting rulings on common issues. | No direct requirement to consolidate based on waivers alone. | If some plaintiffs are unable to pay and arbitration is waived for them, trial court should consider consolidation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 77 (Cal. App. 2003) (unconscionability of high arbitration costs without fee waivers)
- Parada v. Superior Court, 176 Cal.App.4th 1554 (Cal. App. 2009) (unreasonably high forum costs; potential mitigation for access to forum)
- Martin v. Superior Court, 176 Cal. 289 (Cal. 1917) (access to justice policy for litigants regardless of means)
- Swenson v. File, 3 Cal.3d 389 (Cal. 1970) (incorporation of law into contracts implicitly)
- Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 1565 (Cal. App. 2005) (reading contracts by objective intent; reading and understanding provisions)
- In re Tobacco Cases I, 186 Cal.App.4th 42 (Cal. App. 2010) (contract interpretation; implied objective intent governs)