Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Arbitration Pending Litigation
Payment to Class Representative: $7,500; PAGA allocation to LWDA (65%) and class members (35%): $30,000; Class Counsel's attorney's fees: $98,323.50; and Class Counsel's costs: $20,307.27.
In accordance with the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 384 and pursuant to the suggestion in the proposed order, the Court SETS a compliance hearing for February 5, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21, to confirm full administration of the settlement.
The Settlement Administrator shall submit a compliance report no later than nine days before the date of the hearing, which shall include the total amount that was actually paid to the class members pursuant to the subject settlement and the remaining amount of unclaimed funds.
The Court orders that Notice of the Court's Order Granting Final Approval and Judgment be posted on the Settlement Administrator's website for a period of at least 90 days. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.771(b).)
If this motion is granted as prayed, the Court will sign the proposed order.
CV-26-001562 - AMAYA, SALVINO vs DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO - Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Arbitration Pending Litigation - GRANTED
The Court has questions about the legal effect of the initiation of arbitration
Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff's unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
Objections
Plaintiff has objected to paragraphs 2-27 of the Declaration of Michele Bava, the Group Chief Human Resources Officer for Tenet - Northern California and the exhibits attached to the declaration. Although the Court does not consider the information provided by the declaration material to the current dispute, the objections are OVERRULED in their entirety.
Merits
Plaintiff moves to stay an American Arbitration Association ("AAA") proceeding that was initiated by Defendant after this civil action was filed. The arbitration demand names Plaintiff as the "Claimant," notwithstanding that Plaintiff did not know about the commencement of the proceeding, let alone authorize the initiation.
California law strongly favors arbitration (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125), and arbitration agreements may, in some circumstances, be "self-executing" (see infra). Nonetheless, where a civil action has already been filed, the statutory scheme contemplates that a party seeking to arbitrate will pursue a court order enforcing the arbitration agreement. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 1281.2, 1292.4.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, Plaintiff filed the civil complaint, and Defendant did not seek a court order compelling arbitration. Instead, it initiated arbitration proceedings on Plaintiff's behalf after this case was filed and without Plaintiff's consent. That renders this case distinguishable from the authorities relied on by Defendant in pages 7 and 8 of its opposition.
Specifically, in Tutti Mangia Italian Grill, Inc. v. American Textile Maintenance Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 733, 736, fn. 1, "The arbitration award against TMIG had been rendered the day before appellants filed their declaratory relief action." Similarly, in National Marble Co. v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1057, 1063, the court case was initiated by a petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award. Able Building Maintenance Co. v. Board of Trustees of General Employees Trust Fund (9th Cir. 2006) 175 Fed.Appx. 118, 119, also arose from a petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award.
King v. Larsen Realty, Inc. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 349, 352, was initiated by a petition to confirm an arbitration award. In Kustom Kraft Homes v. Leivenstein (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 805, 807?808, Plaintiffs filed their complaint first. Defendants demurred, and the trial court "treated defendant's misplaced demurrer as a request for arbitration and the court's ruling thereon, in effect, as an order therefor." (Id. at p. 811.)
Thus, none of the above cases stands for the proposition that it is appropriate for a civil defendant to unilaterally begin an arbitration without court authorization once a litigation has commenced. The instant sequence raises issues distinct from the ultimate question of arbitrability, including the procedural propriety of the arbitration's initiation and the management of parallel proceedings.
The Court is not, at this time, determining whether Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration or whether any delegation provision applies those questions to the arbitrator. Rather, the Court concludes it retains authority to address the manner in which parallel proceedings are initiated and to determine whether interim relief is appropriate to preserve the orderly administration of justice pending resolution of arbitrability.
And indeed, the Court notes that the AAA seems to agree, as it has already suspended the arbitration in deference to this Court's determination. It appears to the Court that, under the circumstances presented, Defendant should have sought a court order compelling arbitration in the first instance before initiating proceedings that purport to assert Plaintiff's claims and Defendant's defenses. The Court further concludes that it has authority to regulate the relationship between this action and the AAA proceeding, notwithstanding Defendant's arguments to the contrary.
The Court vacates the June 9, 2026 hearing.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-26-000101 - JACKSON, NICHOLAS vs CITY OF MODESTO - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate - DENIED.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the petition. Respondents to submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling within 5 court days.
Background
On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Nicholas Jackson filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code sections 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1085 (the "Petition"). The Petition asks the Court to order Respondents City of Modesto ("City") and the Modesto Police Department (the "Police Department"; collectively, "Respondents") to release body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records arising from a completed traffic stop involving Petitioner Jackson.
The parties submitted briefing and the Court held a hearing on May 8, 2026. Both parties presented oral argument at the hearing and Respondents indicated they would submit additional materials in camera. Subsequently, Respondents submitted additional documents, including an in camera submission.
Petitioner's Unopposed Request for Judicial Notice
On April 23, 2026, Petitioner submitted a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition requesting that the Court take judicial notice of three documents pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 452 and 453: 1) Petitioner's California Public Records Act request dated December 4, 2025 (Exhibit A); 2) Respondent's written response dated December 22, 2025 (Exhibit B); and 3) Redacted CAD report produced by Respondent (Exhibit C). Respondents have no opposition or objections. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's unopposed request for judicial notice.
The California Public Records Act ("CPRA")
"Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor." (Gov. Code, Sec. 7922.535.)
"A response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing." (Gov. Code, Sec. 7922.540.) "The notification of denial shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial." (Ibid.) "An agency shall justify withholding any record by complying with Section 7922.000." (Ibid.)
Under the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"), any person may institute a proceeding for a writ of mandate to enforce the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record. (Gov. Code, Sec. 7923.000.) "[T]he court shall set the times for hearings and responsive pleadings with the object of securing a decision as to the matters at issue at the earliest possible time." (Gov. Code, Sec. 7923.005.) "When it is alleged that public records have