Court Opinion

ID: 9746075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:55:45.179854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:24.114945
License: Public Domain

TURNER, P. J.
I respectfully dissent. Plaintiff contends that the order denying the petition to compel arbitration in California is appealable pursuant to the relevant provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1294, subdivision (a) which states in pertinent part: “An aggrieved party may appeal from: fl[] (a) An order . . . denying a petition to compel arbitration.” *841Also, plaintiff contends that because the trial court denied the petition to compel arbitration in California based upon questions of convenience, then the present matter is appealable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(3) which states in pertinent part: “An appeal. . . may be taken from any of the following: [f] .1. . RQ (3) From an order granting a motion to . . . dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.” I disagree on both counts. In the present case, there was no dispute concerning the duty of the parties to arbitrate. In fact, pre-arbitration discovery had commenced. Rather, the sole dispute related to the venue of the arbitration itself; New Jersey or California.
To begin with, Code of Civil Procedure section 1294, subdivision (a) does not apply for several reasons. The above quoted language in Code of Civil Procedure section 1294, subdivision (a) was not intended to vest an appellate court with jurisdiction to decide on direct appeal interstate arbitration venue issues. There is nothing in the express language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1294, subdivision (a) which refers to venue disputes. Further, the 1960 study by the Law Revision Commission which preceded the enactment of the current version of the California Arbitration Act made no reference to the necessity of providing for review on direct appeal of an order denying a petition which sought to fix the venue of the actual arbitration proceeding. In terms of appellate review, the principal concern of the Law Revision Commission was to codify appellate court decisions which provided that the denial of a petition to compel arbitration was appealable if there was no pending action. (Recommendation and Study Relating to Arbitration (Dec. 1960) 3 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1961) pp. G-59-G to 60, G-64.) The recommendation of the Law Revision Commission concerning appeals was as follows: “The appeal provisions of the arbitration statute should also be clarified. The present statute does not provide for an appeal from an order made prior to the arbitration hearing. The cases hold that an order dismissing a petition to compel arbitration is appealable and an order granting a petition to compel arbitration is not appealable. These decisions should be codified.” (Id. at p. G-11.) The Legislature specifically adopted this recommendation of the Law Revision Commission. (Legis. Counsel, Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 832 (1961-1962 Reg. Sess.) May 12, 1961, pp. 1-2.) Finally, the trial court did not deny a petition to simply compel arbitration. The parties agreed that the underinsured motorist claim must be arbitrated. The trial court recommended that the matter proceed to arbitration “forthwith.”
Finally, the Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(3) inconvenient forum provisions are inapplicable. The court did not dismiss or stay an action based upon forum non conveniens principles. Rather, the trial *842court refused to order the arbitration to occur in California. No dismissal or stay was issued in this case. Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(3) is inapposite. Hence, the decision to deny the petition to compel arbitration in California is not reviewable on direct appeal.
I would dismiss the appeal.