Arbitration, Employment, Sanctions: Trial Court Correctly Determined That Employer Breached Parties’ Arbitration Agreement By Failing To Timely Pay Arbitration Fees Where Employer Argued 30-Day Deadline Was Never Triggered Because Employer’s Counsel, Not Employer, Was Served With The Arbitration Invoice

However, The 4/3 DCA Reversed And Remanded For The Trial Court’s Determination As To Whether Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay Arbitration Fees Should Be Excused Pursuant To Hohenshelt.

In Springs v. SBM Site Services, Case No. G063924 (4^th Dist., Div. 3 October 23, 2025) (unpublished), the trial court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration because employer failed to timely pay arbitration fees pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.98(a)(1), so employer filed an appeal with an unique argument – that the lower court should not have vacated its order compelling arbitration because the 30-day period was never triggered because the arbitration invoice was served on employer’s counsel instead of directly on employer.

In a 3-0 decision authored by Acting Presiding Justice Motoike, the 4/3 DCA rejected employer’s argument – finding such a narrow interpretation of the phrase “parties to the arbitration” in section 1281.98(a)(2) to mean only an actual party, and not the party’s counsel, would lead to absurd results because such an interpretation would have to be applied consistently to California Arbitration Act statutes directing the performance of litigation tasks normally performed by counsel of represented parties, but where counsel is not specified.

However, in light of the holding in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2015) 18 Cal.5^th 310, the appellate panel reversed and remanded with instruction to the trial court to determine whether employer’s failure to timely pay the arbitration fees should be excused.