PALMQUIST vs MARTUCCI, et al.

26CV017209: PALMQUIST vs MARTUCCI, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Petition to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000. A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. *** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN

26CV017209: PALMQUIST vs MARTUCCI, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Petition to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Palmquist’s petition to compel arbitration and to appoint arbitrator is ruled on as follows.

Factual Background

Petitioner Palmquist previously retained respondents to represent him in a 2019 legal action entitled Palmquist v. Gallagher. Petitioner currently alleges defendants committed legal malpractice and breached their fiduciary duties, causing harm. Petitioner concedes his claims against defendants are subject to an arbitration provision and now seeks an order compelling arbitration and appointing an arbitrator.

Respondents oppose, arguing that the present motion is “moot” because (1) they never “refused to participate in arbitration” but merely sought a brief delay while defendant Martucci experienced health issues and (2) “a practice administrator” has now been appointed following defendant Martucci’s death, “the parties can now agree to participate in arbitration and select an arbitrator through Judicate West’s strike and rank system.”

Relevant Legal Principles

Under California law, arbitration must be compelled where there is a valid, binding arbitration agreement unless the opposing party proves the agreement is unenforceable on unconscionability or other grounds. (See, e.g., Armendariz v. Foundation Health (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 96-100, 114; Gatton v. T-Mobile USA (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579.) In fact, Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2 specifically provides in pertinent part:

On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement. (Underline added for emphasis.)

California has a public policy that encourages arbitrations, and arbitration clauses have been repeatedly enforced. (See, e.g., Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV017209: PALMQUIST vs MARTUCCI, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Petition to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

[the California Supreme Court stated this state has a “strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution”]; Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 707 [California’s statutory scheme “evidence[s] a strong public policy in favor of arbitrations [as a] favored method of resolving disputes”]; Gross v. Recabaren (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 771, 775; Berman v. Dean Witter Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003; Greenfield v. Mosley (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 735, 744.)

“Under both federal and state law, the threshold question presented by a petition to compel arbitration is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate.” (Sparks v. Del Mar Child and Family Svcs. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517.) “In a petition to compel arbitration, the party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.] The party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense, including that an arbitration provision is invalid or otherwise not enforceable.” (Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Servs., Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 314, 325.)

Discussion

The Court finds there is in this instance no dispute over the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, its enforceability, or whether it encompasses the claims now asserted by petitioner. Indeed, the opposition effectively concedes arbitration may now proceed and the parties may select an arbitrator. Accordingly, the present petition to compel arbitration shall be granted.

While petitioner also seeks an order appointing an arbitrator, Code of Civil Procedure §1281.6 provides in pertinent part:

If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed. If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Here, the subject arbitration provision states that “[a]ny dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement shall be settled by binding arbitration

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV017209: PALMQUIST vs MARTUCCI, et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Petition to Compel Arbitration in Department 16D

administered by Judicate West in accordance with its applicable rules.” It is unclear if Judicate West’s “applicable rules” specify the method for appointing an arbitrator but if they do, “that method shall be followed.” If Judicate West’s “applicable rules” do not specify any method for selecting an arbitrator, then “the parties may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed.”

In the event no agreement can be reached or if the agreed method fails, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the second paragraph of Code of Civil Procedure §1281.6, which requires that a party petition the Court for appointment of an arbitrator and in connection therewith, the parties shall jointly provide a list of mutually agreeable arbitrators, from whom the Court will select an arbitrator and two alternates.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, petitioner Palmquist’s petition to compel arbitration is GRANTED and the parties shall proceed with selection of an arbitrator in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §1281.6. Only if all applicable procedures for selection fail shall the parties file a new petition for appointment of an arbitrator.

The Court declines to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers and finds that no formal order is necessary in light of this minute order.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)