California Supreme Court Watch

#24-98 Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, S284498. (B327524; 99 Cal.App.5th 1319; Los Angeles County Superior Court; 20PSCV00827.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) preempt state statutes prescribing the procedures for paying arbitration fees and providing for forfeiture of the right to arbitrate if timely payment is not made by the party who drafted the arbitration agreement and who is required to pay such fees?

Petition for review granted: 6/12/2024

Case fully briefed: 1/09/2025

Cause argued and submitted: 5/21/2025

Opinion filed: 8/11/2025

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310.)

“We agree with the Court of Appeal that [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1281.98 is not preempted by the FAA. But in light of our clarification that section 1281.98 does not displace background statutes permitting relief to a breaching party in certain circumstances, we reverse the Court of Appeal’s order ‘direct[ing] the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to lift the stay of litigation and to enter an order lifting the stay.’ (Hohenshelt, supra, 99 Cal.App.5th at p. 1326.) We direct the Court of Appeal to remand the matter to the trial court for consideration of whether Golden State may be excused for its failure to timely pay arbitration fees, such that the stay of litigation should not be lifted and the parties should be returned to arbitration, and whether the delay resulted in compensable harm to Hohenshelt.”

Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Kruger, Groban, and Evans concurred.

Justice Groban filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Evans concurred.

Justice Corrigan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Jenkins concurred.