United Financial Casualty Company vs Ariana Marie Rubio

Case Number

24CV03655

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 01/12/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Petition: Compel Arbitration

Tentative Ruling

United Financial Casualty Company v. Ariana Marie Rubio 

Case No. 24CV03655

           

Hearing Date: January 12, 2026                                            

HEARING:              Petitioner United Financial Casualty Company’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and Appoint Neutral Arbitrator

ATTORNEYS:        For Petitioner United Financial Casualty Company: Eve H. Korff, MacDonald & Cody LLP

                                    For Respondent Ariana Marie Rubio: No appearance  

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on the petition to compel arbitration and appoint neutral arbitrator is continued to February 23, 2026 in order for petitioner to file and serve a fully executed substitution of attorney or, alternatively, file the present petition as a separate action. Petitioner shall give proper notice of the continued hearing date, along with a copy of this ruling, to respondent and respondent’s attorney, and shall file proof of service with the court, no later than January 26, 2026. The proof of service shall specifically state the date, time, and manner of service.

Background:

As set forth in the declaration of counsel for petitioner United Financial Casualty Company (United), attorney Eve H. Korff:

United issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to respondent Ariana Maria Rubio for policy period April 19, 2016, through October 19, 2016. (Korff decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.)

On August 19, 2016, Rubio was involved in an automobile accident, with an uninsured motorist, in Goleta. (Korff decl., ¶ 4.)

On January 16, 2024, United propounded written discovery on Rubio, which was mail served to Rubio’s counsel. (Korff decl., ¶ 9.) On January 16, 2024, United served a notice of taking deposition on Rubio’s counsel, noticing Rubio’s deposition for April 29, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 10.) The deposition was taken off calendar because United did not receive responses to the written discovery. (Ibid.)

It is United’s position that Rubio has failed to timely conclude arbitration proceedings, and no waiver or extension was given to Rubio. (Korff decl., ¶ 13.) United seeks an order compelling the matter to arbitration so that it may renew its motion to dismiss based upon the running of the statute of limitations and failure to timely complete arbitration. (Ibid.)

On July 1, 2024, United filed its petition in this matter “to commence and enforce discovery” pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f). No proof of service has ever been filed as to this petition. No discovery motions have been filed pursuant to this petition.

On January 27, 2025, United filed a motion “for dismissal of uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding for failure to prosecute.” The motion was denied due to several procedural deficiencies and errors of law.

On September 24, 2025, United filed the present petition to compel arbitration and appoint neutral arbitrator. There is a proof of service attached, that was executed on September 24, 2025, indicating that Rubio’s attorney was served via email and U.S. Mail, and that Rubio was personally served at two separate addresses in South Dartmouth, MA.

Analysis:

As just one of the procedural issues that the court noted, in denying United’s motion to dismiss arbitration proceedings, is that United’s counsel had changed law firms. The court specifically noted:

“A first, minor issue, is that counsel for United has apparently changed firms since the filing of the petition but has failed to file a substitution of counsel in this proceeding. So, there is a technical issue as to the standing of current counsel even to make the motion.” (Minute Order of April 21, 2025.)

“Law firms act through individual attorneys, and when a client retains an attorney, he or she retains the entire firm.” (Roche v. Hyde (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 757, 804.)

The court does not have anything before it that confers authority on MacDonald & Cody, LLP to file the present petition. The original petition in this case was filed by Shaver, Korff & Castronovo, LLP, and that firm technically remains Rubio’s attorneys of record. It does not matter that it is the same attorney listed on the caption. The law firm is the attorney of record. As such, the current petition should either be filed as a separate action or United is required to file and serve a fully executed substitution of attorney. The hearing on this matter will be continued for a sufficient time for United to either file its petition to compel arbitration as a separate matter, or, to file and serve a proper substitution of attorney.