Wright v. WellQuest Elk Grove, LLC (Mar. 18, 2026, No. C105070) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2026 WL 762409]
An elderly dementia patient was admitted to a memory care facility. The facility was informed that she was a wanderer who required supervision to prevent her from leaving the premises. Three days after admission, the patient was found alone and unresponsive outside in extreme heat. She died four days later. The decedent’s family sued the facility for elder neglect, negligence, fraud, tort per se, wrongful death, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The facility moved to compel arbitration and to stay court proceedings based on an agreement signed by the decedent’s niece. The trial court denied both motions. In pertinent part, the court ruled that some claims in the lawsuit could not be compelled to arbitration, creating the possibility of conflicting rulings by an arbitrator and trial judge, which is a discretionary basis for denying arbitration under state law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (c)). The facility appealed, asserting that section 1281.2, subdivision (c), was preempted by the parties’ express choice to invoke the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in their arbitration agreement.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The parties’ agreement required arbitration “in accordance with” or “pursuant to” the FAA. The Court of Appeal found this language inadequate to express a preference to be governed by the FAA’s procedural provisions, even if the FAA’s substantive provisions might apply. And because the FAA’s procedural provisions did not apply, state procedural law applied by default, including section 1281.2, subdivision (c), on which the trial court had relied. In reaching this conclusion, the court disagreed with Rodriguez v. American Technologies, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1110, which held otherwise.
