|
A California appellate court has held that a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of claims compelled to arbitration deprives a trial court of jurisdiction to order those claims to arbitration, even if the plaintiff subsequently raises the same non-arbitrable claims in a second suit.
In Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. B205882, 2008 WL 4308409 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2008), Cardiff and O’Neel entered into two contracts: (1) a real estate contract that included an arbitration agreement and (2) a guaranty contract that did not. A dispute arose between the parties. When Cardiff sued O’Neel under both contracts, O’Neel moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. The trial court granted the motion, noting that the "gravamen" of Cardiff’s claims concerned the real estate contract containing the arbitration agreement.
Before the commencement of arbitration proceedings, Cardiff voluntarily dismissed its suit against O’Neel. Cardiff then filed a second suit, reasserting only the claims arising out of the guaranty contract. O’Neel moved to compel arbitration again, arguing that Cardiff was merely trying to circumvent the trial court’s order compelling arbitration by dismissing the first suit without prejudice and filing a second suit. The trial court agreed and compelled arbitration of the second suit.
On writ of mandate, Cardiff argued that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to compel arbitration of the claims by Cardiff’s voluntary dismissal of its arbitrable claims in the first suit and the refiling of the non-arbitrable claims in the second suit.
The Court agreed, noting that Cardiff had the right to voluntary dismissal of its own case before commencement of trial under Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 581. The practical effect of precluding this right, according to the Court, would be to "require [Cardiff] to open arbitration proceedings in New York and pay all necessary fees simply to seek dismissal of the case" at arbitral proceedings. Because neither arbitration nor litigation had started before dismissal, the Court found Cardiff within its right to dismiss its first suit.
Also, because Cardiff sought and received dismissal without prejudice of its first suit, the Court held that it retained the right to file its second suit. The Court noted that under the circumstances, Cardiff would have even been allowed to file the exact same suit a second time, "so long as it [was] done within the period of the appropriate statute of limitations."
Finally, the Court held that a voluntary dismissal – such as Cardiff’s in the first suit – absolutely deprives the trial court of the subject matter and personal jurisdiction necessary to compel arbitration. According to the Court, once dismissal was effective, the first case ceased to exist, and there was no "single overlapping issue" or "intertwining" left that would allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to compel arbitration.
Accordingly, the Court granted Cardiff’s writ of mandate and ordered the lower court to vacate its order compelling arbitration.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|