United Financial Casualty Company vs Ariana Marie Rubio

Case Number

24CV03655

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 02/23/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Petition: Compel Arbitration

Tentative Ruling

United Financial Casualty Company v. Ariana Marie Rubio

Case No. 24CV03655

           

Hearing Date: February 23, 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 petition of United Financial Casualty Company to compel arbitration and appoint neutral arbitrator is denied.

Background and Analysis:

This action commenced on July 1, 2024, by the filing of a three paragraph petition “to commence and enforce discovery” pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f), by petitioner United Financial Casualty Company (United or “petitioner”) against respondent Ariana Maria Rubio (Rubio or “respondent”). The petition contains almost no information other than that United was presented with claims for uninsured motorist bodily injury benefits by Rubio. The original petition was filed by the law firm of Shaver, Korff & Castronovo LLP. No proof of service has ever been filed as 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. In denying the motion, the court noted:

“All that has occurred in this proceeding until now is that United filed a petition to commence and enforce discovery under Insurance Code section 11580.2, but did not in filing that petition request anything of the court other than for the court to assume jurisdiction and assign a case number. The petition asks for no affirmative relief either from the court or against Rubio. There is also nothing filed with the court to indicate that the petition was ever served on Rubio.” (Minute Order of April 21, 2025.)

“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.)

“The second, and more significant problem, is that this motion to dismiss was served only by mail. In order for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction over the respondent in matters involving arbitration, service must be accomplished in a statutorily authorized manner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4; Spear v. California State Auto. Assn. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1035, 1041 [a petition to compel arbitration for uninsured motorist claims may be brought under the Cal. Arbitration Act].) There is nothing before the court to indicate that service by mail on counsel for Rubio (who has not appeared as counsel of record in this proceeding and in which Rubio also has not appeared) is effective service.” (Minute Order of April 21, 2025.)

“A third and further problem is that, on the face of the motion, there are no arbitration proceedings to dismiss. There has been no court proceeding to compel arbitration or to exercise any judicial authority over the arbitration process. The earlier-filed petition did not seek any court order, but acted as a placeholder for future-filed discovery motions. Exceeding the limitations period for concluding arbitration under Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivisions (f) and (i), may be a basis for denying a motion or petition to compel arbitration (Santangelo v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 804, 807), but section 11580.2 does not authorize dismissal of apparently non-existent arbitration proceedings.” (Minute Order of April 21, 2025.)

“A fourth problem is that the procedural posture of a petition to commence and to enforce discovery is limited. Such a petition is not in the nature of a declaratory relief action. (Cf. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 783, 793 [declaratory relief action to declare uninsured motorist claim barred by unreasonable delay].) United provides no authority that the court could, even if the other procedural impediments were removed, make such a ruling in the context of this limited petition.” (Minute Order of April 21, 2025.)

United has not corrected or otherwise addressed any of the deficiencies addressed in the court’s ruling.

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. Filed with the motion is the declaration of attorney Eve H. Korff. Korff declares: “On October 24, 2024, I mail served a Notice of Association of Counsel on Respondent’s counsel and thereby informed them that the law firm of Macdonald & Cody LLP had associated in as counsel for Petitioner.” (Korff Decl., ¶ 11.) No Notice of Association of Counsel has been filed with the court, nor has a substitution of attorney been filed with the court.

On January 12, 2026, in continuing the hearing on the present motion, the court emphasized:

“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.” (Minute Order of January 12, 2026.)

Included in the January 12, 2026 ruling is:

“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’s counsel was present at the hearing.

There is still no substitution of attorney on file. Petitioner having been twice instructed to file a substitution of attorney and failing to do so, the court considered issuing an order to show cause why petitioner’s counsel should not be sanctioned up to $1,500.00 for failure to follow the court’s orders. However, this time, the petition will simply be denied. It will also be denied because petitioner has continued to fail to file a proof of service as to the original petition.