Fourth District, Division 3 Publishes To Distinguish Mansouri v. Superior Court.
California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.2 requires that a party seeking to compel arbitration allege, “the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy.” The question in Hyundai Amco America, Inc. v. S3H, Inc., Case No. G049204 (4/3 Dec. 17, 2014) (Fybel, O’Leary, Ikola) (published) was whether contractor S3H was required to formally demand arbitration from Hyundai Amco once Hyundai Amco filed a complaint. The answer: No. Filing the complaint “invoked the protections and procedures of the court system, and thus was an effective denial of arbitration.”
The Court published to distinguish Mansouri v. Superior Court, 181 Cal.App.4th 633 (2010). In Mansouri, the arbitration demand did not match the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement, whereas Hyundai Amco’s lawsuit “clearly related to the parties’ performance under the agreement, thus suffic[ing] to show Hyundai Amco’s refusal to arbitrate the controversy.”
LITIGATION TIP: In run-of-the-mill cases, formally request an opponent to arbitrate before moving to compel arbitration.