Judicial Intervention to Lift Stay of Arbitral Proceedings Granted By Arbitrator “Wholly Incompatible” with the Law

A California appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s denial of a writ of mandate seeking to lift a stay of arbitral proceedings, noting that judicial intervention once arbitration commences is improper.

In Briggs v. Resolution Remedies, No. A121594, 2008 WL 4958308 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2008), Briggs was injured in a car accident and filed a demand for arbitration with insurer GEICO in accordance with an arbitration agreement. GEICO petitioned the arbitrator for a stay for arbitral proceedings, maintaining that the injuries occurred while Briggs was acting within the scope of her employment, and she was required to exhaust worker’s compensation remedies before seeking benefits under the policy. The arbitrator granted the motion.

Briggs petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate, arguing that the arbitrator improperly stayed the proceedings. GEICO opposed the motion on the merits and demurred to the petition based on lack of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the petition, finding that Briggs was required to exhaust workers compensation remedies under the terms of the policy.

On appeal, the Court agreed with the trial court’s judgment, but based its decision on the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear the petition. After first noting that jurisdictional arguments are never waived and can be raised at any time, the Court found the trial court’s intervention in the merits of the arbitral proceeding were improper once arbitration was determined as the proper forum.

The Court found intervention especially improper under these circumstances, where the matter proceeded to arbitration in the first instance without the need for a motion to compel. To find otherwise, according to the Court, “would also recreate the very delays incident to a civil action that the arbitration agreement was designed to avoid.”