HOSKINSON, ROY BERT, Jr vs LUMAUIG, BRANDON

Second, the balance of harms favors Plaintiff. It does not appear that Defendant initiated the arbitration in good faith. Defendant managed to initiate an arbitration as the Respondent by submitting an arbitration demand on behalf of Plaintiff as the Claimant. Typically, Respondents do not initiate arbitration, they respond to them.

Defendant states that AAA Rule 4 allows either party to initiate arbitration "in the absence of a joint request for arbitration." (Opposition at 18.) The Court was unable to locate such language in the AAA rules. Rather Rule 4 states that arbitration is initiated "by the initiating party" who is "referred to as the 'claimant[.]' " (July 22, 2026 Amended Decl. of Jaclyn Joyce, Ex. 2 at p. 8.) In addition, the arbitration agreement at issue states that "an employee may initiate the arbitration process[.]" (Id., Ex. 1 at p. 2.) Neither document states that a Respondent may initiate an arbitration against itself on behalf of another party.

Defendant's argument that the arbitration agreement may be unilaterally commenced by either party without the need for a court order likewise appears misplaced. None of the cases which Defendant cites stand for the proposition that a respondent may initiate an arbitration against itself on behalf of the claimant. Rather, those cases merely demonstrate that a claimant may submit an arbitration demand a=without a court order. Forcing Plaintiff to participate in arbitration proceedings that were improperly initiated harms Plaintiff and produces waste by forcing Plaintiff to devote resources on two fronts unnecessarily.

Meanwhile, Defendant will suffer no harm in waiting for the Court's order on its own motion to compel arbitration. That Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration in the instant case indicates that Defendant is aware of the proper procedure yet chose to circumvent established rules and procedures in an attempt to gain the upper hand.

The Court notes that in the context of duplicative cases pending in other jurisdictions, California courts have the power to issue orders that prohibit a party from taking action in other actions that interfere with the trial court's proceedings. (Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 697, 713, as modified (Mar. 5, 2003) ["Courts . . . consider vexatiousness or oppressiveness in a race to judgment in the foreign forum as sufficient grounds to issue an antisuit injunction."].) Although an arbitration is not a judicial proceeding, the logic is applicable to matter at hand. Defendant's acts of improperly initiating arbitration interfere with the trial court's proceedings.

PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATHEW - Petitioner's Motion for Sanctions Against Respondent's Counsel Cyril L. Lawrence and Cyril Lawrence, Inc. - DENIED.

The Court does not condone the submission of inaccurate legal authority. Attorneys have an obligation to independently verify citations before submitting a filing. However, former counsel Cyril L. Lawrence filed a Notice of Error acknowledging that the quotation attributed to Estate of Lingenfelter cited in a prior filing did not appear in the opinion. He admitted that the misattribution was the result of an AI research tool, and he corrected the error shortly after it was brought to his attention.

The Court finds that this isolated corrected citation error does not warrant sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. As to Petitioner's remaining allegations, the Court finds that Petitioner has not met his burden of establishing that the challenged filings were presented for an improper purpose, that the legal contentions were objectively frivolous, or that the factual contentions lacked evidentiary support within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. The motion is therefore DENIED in its entirety.

No sanctions are awarded.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:

CV-23-004787 - HOSKINSON, ROY BERT, Jr vs LUMAUIG, BRANDON - Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 473(B) - DENIED.

The Court notes that the judgment which is the subject of the instant motion is also currently the subject of a pending appeal. Under the circumstances, the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the motion herein. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 916(a).) Therefore, the Court must deny the motion on that ground. Additionally, even if the instant motion were properly before the Court at this time, the Court would have serious doubts as to the viability of the same, in view of the fact that the judgment resulted from the Court's substantive determination regarding the statute of limitations defense to the action.

CV-25-006952 - A&A TRUCK TRAILER REPAIR INC vs SINGH, YADWINDER - Defendant Yadwinder Singh's