Leshane

DISCUSSION

Defendants agree plaintiffs’ claim under the Private Attorneys General Act cannot be compelled to arbitration. They contend, however, that arbitration is still required to resolve the arbitrable individual claims plaintiffs raised in their original complaint which was dismissed without prejudice by filing the first amended complaint. Defendants urge

2 us to interpret “controversy” as used in Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 1281.2 as including any question subject to an arbitration agreement, even if that question is not asserted by a claimant in any forum. They argue this is permitted because section 1281.2 does not require a controversy be brought in a court action before it can be compelled into arbitration. While we agree a legal action is not a prerequisite to an arbitration order (see, e.g., Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co. (1947) 30 Cal.2d 335, 337 [buyer instituted proceeding to compel arbitration of seller’s liability under contract after seller failed to deliver goods]; United Public Employees v. City & County of San Francisco (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1021, 1023 [union plaintiff instituted proceeding to compel arbitration of a member’s grievance against…