Activities Inconsistent With Right To Arbitrate, Without Showing Of Prejudice, Is Sufficient To Find Waiver Of Right To Arbitrate.

        In Hofer v. Boladian, 111 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2/5  5/9/25) (Hoffstadt, Moor, Kim), the Califo In Hofer v. Boladian, 111 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2/5  5/9/25) (Hoffstadt, Moor, Kim), the Cali rnia Court of Appeal applied the California Supreme Court’s new waiver standard from Quach v. California Commerce Club (2024) to affirm denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Hofer and his entities sued Boladian and her new firm despite contractual arbitration clauses, vigorously litigating for six months before moving to compel arbitration. Their litigation activities included seeking injunctive relief, opposing a demurrer, propounding 734 discovery requests, demanding a jury trial, and paying jury fees—while rarely mentioning arbitration and never seeking to preserve the right early. Under Quach, waiver occurs when clear and convincing evidence shows a party knew of its right to arbitrate and intentionally relinquished or abandoned it; prejudice is no longer required. The court found Hofer knew of his right (having executed the agreements and raised arbitration pre-suit) but engaged in conduct so inconsistent with arbitration that waiver was established. The court rejected arguments that litigation was “necessary” for provisional relief or because of nonsignatory parties, noting that statutory non-waiver provisions require contemporaneous requests to stay proceedings, which Hofer did not make. Sporadic mentions of arbitration were outweighed by consistent pursuit of court litigation.