BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1065| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1065 Author: Monning (D) Amended: 3/28/16 Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/26/16 AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski NOES: Anderson SUBJECT: Dismissal or denial of petitions to compel arbitration: appeals SOURCE: California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform Congress of California Seniors Consumer Attorneys of California DIGEST: This bill precludes a party from taking an immediate appeal from an order dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration if the opposing party has filed a claim pursuant to the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act and that opposing party has been granted a trial preference pursuant to existing law, as specified. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1) Governs arbitrations in California under the California Arbitration Act (CAA), including the enforcement of arbitration agreements, rules for neutral arbitrators, the SB 1065 Page 2 conduct of arbitration proceedings, and the enforcement of arbitration awards. 2) Provides that a written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. 3) Provides that on a petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy, if a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order arbitration of the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines any of the following: a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement; or c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. 4) Provides that an aggrieved party may appeal from the following: a) An order dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration; b) An order dismissing a petition to conform, correct or SB 1065 Page 3 vacate an award; c) An order vacating an award unless a rehearing in arbitration is ordered; d) A judgment entered pursuant to this title; or e) A special order after final judgment. 5) Provides that a writ of mandate may be issued by any court to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person. 6) Provides that a party may not appeal an order compelling arbitration until after final judgment, but may, under extraordinary circumstances, seek a writ of mandate to request review of the ruling by the court of appeal in advance of the arbitration hearing. (Laufman v. Hall-Mack Co. (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 87; United Firefighters of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1576; Mid-Wilshire Associates v. O'Leary (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1450.) 7) Provides, under Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that a party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a (trial) preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: a) The party has a substantial interest in the action as SB 1065 Page 4 a whole; and b) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation. 8) Provides that the court, in its discretion, may also grant a motion for preference that is accompanied by clear and convincing medical documentation that concludes that one of the parties suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial medical doubt of survival of that party beyond six months, and that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference. Furthermore, existing law provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference. 9) Provides that upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party's attorney, or upon a showing of good cause. Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party. 10)Provides, generally, under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA), civil protections and remedies for victims of elder and dependent adult abuse and neglect. This bill provides that if a party has filed a claim pursuant to the EADACPA and has been granted a preference pursuant to this statute, an opposing party shall not appeal from an order SB 1065 Page 5 dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to Section 1294, above, arising from that claim. This bill creates a limited exception to Section 1294's immediate right of appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration for these purposes. Background As a general matter, arbitrations provide an alternative method of dispute resolution, outside of the courts, wherein a neutral third party, known as the arbitrator, renders a decision after a hearing to which both parties have had an opportunity to be heard. Under California law, there are two distinguishable types of arbitration: judicial arbitration (also known as court-annexed arbitration, governed under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1141.10 -1141.31) and private arbitrations (also commonly known as "contractual," "voluntary," or "nonjudicial" arbitrations; governed under the CAA, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280 et seq.). On March 1, 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an informational hearing on the topic of private or contractual arbitration agreements, entitled The Federal Arbitration Act, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Impact of Mandatory Arbitration on California Consumers and Employees. In that hearing, many issues facing consumers and employees who are subject to arbitration clauses contained in standardized, take-it-or-leave-it, or "adhesive" contracts were brought to light. That hearing also brought to light the various difficulties facing the State in addressing some of the underlying, fundamental harms faced by consumers and employees as a result of federal preemption and U.S. Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act. A package of arbitration bills, of which this bill is one, arose out of the hearing, seeking to address various fairness issues surrounding the rules that govern the conduct and operation of arbitrators and arbitrations in this state. Of particular relevance to this bill, California law provides that, as a general rule, appeals may only be taken from such judgments or orders as are made appealable by statute. In turn, Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, governing the SB 1065 Page 6 right to appeal in a civil action, generally provides that the right of appeal exists only upon a judgment, except there may be an appeal from an interlocutory judgment that is made final and conclusive. A "judgment," as referenced here, is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 577.) Accordingly, this "final judgment rule" seeks to limit the number of appeals possible in light of the court's interests in expediency, efficiency, and economy. Appeals in arbitration matters, however, are specifically governed under a provision of the CAA, and the CAA diverges from the above final judgment rule with respect to the appealability of orders dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration. Under the CAA, if a party to a contractual arbitration agreement seeks instead to file suit in court or refuses to submit the dispute to arbitration, disputing either the validity or applicability of the arbitration agreement, the other party to the arbitration agreement may seek to enforce the arbitration by way of a motion to compel arbitration. Generally, the court must order the parties to arbitration unless: (1) grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement; (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (3) a party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1281.2.) If, however, the court does ultimately deny the motion to compel arbitration, the CAA provides for a statutory right to immediately appeal that decision by the party seeking to force arbitration (usually the defendant), thus staying the trial until the appeal of the order denying or dismissing the arbitration can be heard and decided. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1294(a).) The CAA does not provide a similar right of immediate appeal to a plaintiff if the court grants the defendant's motion to compel arbitration. This bill precludes a party from taking an immediate right of appeal when a motion to compel arbitration has been denied, if: (1) the case involves a claim under the EADACPA; and (2) the senior has received a trial preference under existing law due to SB 1065 Page 7 age and health. Comments As stated by the author: SB 1065 eliminates the automatic right of appeal that a defendant has when it loses a motion to compel arbitration, but only (1) in Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act cases and (2) only where the senior has received a trial preference under [Code of Civil Procedure Section] 36 due to age and health. California's elder abuse statute, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA), was enacted to protect elderly and dependent adults from abuse. [ . . . ] It defines civil elder abuse to mean physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment resulting in physical harm or pain or mental suffering. (Welfare & Institutions Code [Sec.] 15610.07). Other than financial elder abuse, these claims all require the higher standard of "clear and convincing" proof and are thus difficult to pursue. Under current law, trial courts may grant victims of elder abuse a speedy trial in light of their age and failing health. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 36(a).) [ . . . ] Although the exact number of [Section] 36 preferences granted to victims of elder abuse each year is unknown, practitioners report that the number is small as not many elders meet the onerous requirements of Section 36. Additionally, under current law, [ . . . if] the court denies [a defendant's] motion to compel the case to arbitration because the arbitration agreement is found to be unconscionable, [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 1294(c) gives the defendant the automatic right to appeal that decision, even if the elderly plaintiff has already been granted the right to a speedy trial under [Code of Civil SB 1065 Page 8 Procedure] Section 36(a). Therefore, under the current law, a defendant who tries (and fails) to force these elderly victims into arbitration can nonetheless override the court's order for a preferential trial date and delay the elder's trial another 1-3 years by filing an appeal. The elderly victims have no similar rights-if a defendant succeeds in forcing them into arbitration, the victims may not delay and must proceed straight to arbitration. The author asserts that "[t]he delay caused by the appeal is done in the hope that the elder will not survive long enough for the appeal to be decided, thereby reducing the defendant's liability if the victim dies before trial" and provides several examples of appeals that successfully delayed the trial by over a year. In one case, the author cites, a 90-year-old stroke victim brought an elder abuse action against the defendant nursing home after she was sexually assaulted at the facility and contracted a sexually transmitted disease. The victim succeeded both in obtaining a trial preference and in challenging the defendant's motion to compel arbitration, but the nursing home appealed the denial. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal ultimately heard and ruled 3-0 for the victim, finding that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced against her. (Young v. Horizon West, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1122). The author notes that the appeal "took almost a year and a half, and that was even an expedited process (after the court of appeal granted preference). Fortunately, Mrs. Young outlived this tactic, and was able to get her case resolved. Many others in her position do not live to see a resolution of the case." The author cites another case, Bush v. Horizon West (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 924, where "the victim did not survive the nearly 2 years it took to get the favorable appellate opinion allowing the case to get back on the Court's trial calendar." FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:NoLocal: No SB 1065 Page 9 SUPPORT: (Verified4/28/16) California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (co-source) Congress of California Seniors (co-source) Consumer Attorneys of California (co-source) California Alliance for Retired Americans Consumer Federation of California OPPOSITION: (Verified4/28/16) California Association of Health Facilities Civil Justice Association of California ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Consumer Federation of California writes in support: California's elder abuse statute, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, was enacted to protect elderly and dependent adults from abuse. Unfortunately, current law creates an incentive for delay by permitting a defendant who unsuccessfully tries to force an elder abuse victim into arbitration to file an appeal and delay the hearing another one to three years. It is routine for defendant nursing homes who want to avoid a jury trial to file a motion to enforce an arbitration provision, which the facility drafted and then coerced the victim into signing at enrollment. This delay often has the effect of denying the abused person his or her day in court. SB 1065 fixes this procedural delay by stating that if a senior has received a trial court preference because she is over 70 and in ill health, she has a right to continue to court instead of waiting years for the alleged abuser to game the system by filing an automatic appeal. SB 1065 Page 10 As our society ages, it is crucial that legislative policy address and protect the rights of our seniors who are subject to abuse. The California Alliance for Retired Americans also argues in support that: Elders who are sign and dying who have an elder abuse case pending should not be delayed in getting their case heard in court. The average appellate process of three years or more to hear these cases is totally unacceptable. In cases where there is elder abuse by a nursing home or elder care facility, and an ill or dying elder abuse victim is granted a speedy trial preference, it is very common for the defendant nursing home who wants to avoid a jury trial to file a motion to enforce an arbitration provision which the facility drafted and then coerce the victim into signing this upon entering the facility - basically waiving their rights to a speedy trial if one become necessary. SB 1065 helps seniors get to trial more quickly in an Elder Abuse Act claim by stating that if the senior obtains a legal preference for court because she is sick and dying, she can continue to court without waiting years for an appeal in the middle of the case. In sum, it gives both plaintiffs and defendants equal appellate rights. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) writes in opposition to the bill that SB 1065 "is contrary to California's strong public policy favoring arbitration and the enforcement of valid arbitration agreements. It is also unnecessary to expedite resolution of the complaint. California Rules of Court Rule 8.240 allows a party to seek an expedited appeal schedule on the same grounds that satisfy Code of Civil Procedure [Section] 36. If a litigant has been granted a preference by the trial court, she should have no difficulty SB 1065 Page 11 obtaining calendar preference from the appeals court." CJAC also writes: In Louise Laswell v. AG Seal Beach LLC., 189 Cal.App.4th 1399, California's Second District Court of Appeal heard an appeal of a trial court order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a case involving allegations of elder abuse and other misconduct. The court held that the patient's trial preference due to age and terminal illness did not support denial of arbitration. One of the reasons cited for the trial court's denial of the petition to compel arbitration was that she had been granted a trial preference and the case would proceed just as expeditiously in court as in arbitration. In overturning the trial court's decision, the appeals court wrote that the patient's age and trial court preference had no relevance as to whether the agreement to arbitrate was enforceable, but that her advanced age should be considered by the trial court, the parties and the arbitrator in scheduling proceedings on remand. Arbitration is a faster, more cost-effective means of resolving disputes than litigation in court, and is supported by statutes requiring the enforcement of valid arbitration agreements. An order denying enforcement of such an agreement is appealable under current law and should remain so, even for litigants who have been granted priority under Code of Civil Procedure [Section] 36. Prepared by:Ronak Daylami / JUD. / (916) 651-4113 4/29/16 12:39:23 **** END **** SB 1065 Page 12