Carmax Auto Superstores California v. Super. Ct. CA4/2
Opinion
Opinion
DISCUSSION
The language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 is unequivocal: as long
as an application to compel arbitration remains “undetermined,” the court handling
related litigation “shall . . . stay the action . . . until the application for an order to
arbitrate is determined.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1281.4, italics added; see Thomas v.
Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 620.) The purpose is to protect the jurisdiction of
the arbitrator and prevent duplicative proceedings, and the court’s power to refuse a stay
is, if it exists at all, extremely limited. (MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011)
191 Cal.App.4th 643, 658-662.) In our view it is clear that this means finally determined
as long as a dissatisfied party is pursuing appellate review.
Although it is not crucial to our construction of the statute, we also note that the
federal district courts are in disagreement concerning the correctness of the decision in
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 and petitioner’s
2 appeal stands at least some chance of success. Furthermore, Iskanian does not decide as
a rule of law where claims under Labor Code section 2698…