1

Filed 4/15/15 Carmax Auto Superstores California v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES 

CALIFORNIA, LLC, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, 

 Respondent; 

TRINIDAD HERRERA et al., 

 Real Parties in Interest. 

 E062879 

 (Super.Ct.No. RIC1406023) 

 OPINION 

 ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate/prohibition. Craig 

Riemer, Judge. Petition granted. 

 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Jack S. Sholkoff and Patricia M. Jeng, 

for Petitioner. 
2

 Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton, Aaron C. Gundzik and Rebecca G. Gundzik; Law 

Office of Neal J. Fialkow and Neal J. Fialkow, for Real Parties in Interest. 

 In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real parties 

in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of 

settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is 

therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 

178.) 

DISCUSSION 

 The language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 is unequivocal: as long 

as an application to compel arbitration remains “undetermined,” the court handling 

related litigation “shall . . . stay the action . . . until the application for an order to 

arbitrate is determined.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.4, italics added; see Thomas v. 

Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 620.) The purpose is to protect the jurisdiction of 

the arbitrator and prevent duplicative proceedings, and the court’s power to refuse a stay 

is, if it exists at all, extremely limited. (MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 

191 Cal.App.4th 643, 658-662.) In our view it is clear that this means finally determined 

as long as a dissatisfied party is pursuing appellate review. 

 Although it is not crucial to our construction of the statute, we also note that the 

federal district courts are in disagreement concerning the correctness of the decision in 

Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 and petitioner’s 
3

appeal stands at least some chance of success. Furthermore, Iskanian does not decide as 

a rule of law where claims under Labor Code section 2698 should be determined. 

DISPOSITION 

 Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of 

mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate its order 

denying petitioner’s motion to stay the action, and to enter a new order granting said 

motion. 

Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, 

copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of 

service on all parties. Petitioner to recover its costs. 

The previously ordered stay is lifted. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

KING 

 J. 

We concur: 

RAMIREZ 

 P. J. 

HOLLENHORST 

 J.