Zazueta v. Imperial Heights Healthcare etc. CA4/1, D075879

Plaintiffs sued Imperial Heights for wrongful death, negligence, and elder abuse; Imperial Heights petitioned to compel arbitration and the trial court granted the petition; litigation was stayed.
Plaintiffs did not oppose the petition to compel arbitration.
Over a year later plaintiffs moved to "restore the case to the civil active list and set trial dates," alleging Imperial Heights waived the right to arbitrate by failing to engage in arbitration/mediation.
Imperial Heights opposed, asserting it had taken steps to initiate arbitration; its counsel missed a hearing due to a calendaring/coverage mistake.
The trial court restored the case to the civil active list and set a trial date; it denied Imperial Heights’ ex parte relief and reconsideration.
The Court of Appeal held the order was appealable and reversed, ruling the trial court lacked power to terminate the arbitration and must deny plaintiffs’ motion on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order restoring the case to the civil active list is appealable	The court’s order simply addressed waiver and is reviewable	Order is functionally equivalent to denying arbitration and thus appealable under section 1294(a)	Appealable: order is the functional equivalent of denying arbitration, so immediate review is allowed
Whether the trial court could restore the case/ set trial dates after compelling arbitration (i.e., terminate arbitration for alleged dilatory conduct)	Plaintiffs argued Imperial Heights waived arbitration by failing to engage and thus court could reinstate litigation	Imperial Heights argued the court lacked jurisdiction to displace arbitration; dilatory conduct should be addressed in arbitration	Trial court erred: after compelling arbitration and staying litigation the court had only vestigial jurisdiction and could not restore the case or set trial dates based on alleged dilatory conduct; issues belong in arbitration
Whether post-judgment waiver of arbitration is appropriate where arbitration already compelled	Plaintiffs relied on waiver doctrine (Sobremonte) to justify reactivation of litigation	Imperial Heights argued waiver doctrine does not justify terminating an already-compelled arbitration; any delay should be addressed in arbitration	Waiver inapplicable after petition granted and litigation stayed; waiver arguments must be raised in arbitration forum rather than by restoring litigation

Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992) (public policy strongly favors arbitration and statutory scheme governs enforcement)
Henry v. Alcove Investment, Inc., 233 Cal.App.3d 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (orders delaying arbitration are functionally equivalent to denying arbitration and are appealable)
MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC, 191 Cal.App.4th 643 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (order lifting stay and declaring arbitration unenforceable is appealable)
Lawson v. ZB, N.A., 18 Cal.App.5th 705 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (orders that interfere with arbitration are appealable under §1294(a))
Gastelum v. Remax Internat., Inc., 244 Cal.App.4th 1016 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (distinguishing appealability where no arbitration proceeding is pending)
Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.App.4th 482 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (after arbitration is compelled, court retains only ‘‘vestigial’’ jurisdiction; arbitrator controls procedure and delay remedies)
Blake v. Ecker, 93 Cal.App.4th 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (if arbitration compelled, relief for a party’s failure to participate is sought in arbitration, not by restoring litigation)
Sobremonte v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 980 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (petition to compel arbitration may be denied when party seeking arbitration unreasonably delayed and prejudiced opponent)