We Predict More Remands For Pre-Hohenshelt Rulings.
Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.5th 310 (2025) changed the strict application of CCP sections 1281.97 and 1281.98 in regards to employers paying arbitration expenses within 30 days of an invoice under penalty of having to return to court, finding that tardy payments could be forgiven for good faith mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Two recent unpublished opinions confirm the impact of this case, with us predicting some more remands are in the offing or affirmance of lower court decisions finding good faith reasons for a later payment.
The first one, Castro v. DCH Torrance Imports, Case No. B338241 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 30, 2025) (unpublished), was a situation where employer did not pay in 30 days and the case returned to court. Justice Wiley (who dissented in Hohenshelt on FAA preemption grounds, an argument not embraced by our state Supreme Court) authored a 3-0 opinion remanding the matter to consider any Hohenshelt excuses on behalf of employer.
The second one, Keck v. Odaseva.com, Case No. A171528 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 30, 2025) (unpublished), employee suffering an adverse arbitration award argued the case should have proceeded in court based on untimely payment of expenses. Employer, however, showed it contested the initial invoice, which resulted in it being cancelled, and with employer paying the reissued invoice within 30 days. Under those circumstances and in line with Hohenshelt, the lower court did not error in denying the request to return the matter to court because employer acted in good faith in paying the reissued invoice.