Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.2
Petitions to compel arbitration
On petition, a court must compel arbitration if a valid agreement exists — unless the right was waived or there are grounds to revoke the agreement.
Read the official text at California Legislative Information →
Overview
Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 is the engine of California arbitration practice. It directs a court, on the petition of a party to an arbitration agreement, to order the parties to arbitrate a controversy if the court determines that an agreement to arbitrate it exists — subject to a set of statutory exceptions that are the battleground in most motions to compel.
In the employment setting, the contest is rarely about whether an agreement exists; it is about whether one of the exceptions defeats enforcement, and whether the Federal Arbitration Act governs and preempts the state-law defense being raised.
The mandate and its exceptions
If the court finds that a valid agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, it must order arbitration. The policy favoring arbitration is strong, and doubts about the scope of an arbitrable controversy are generally resolved in favor of arbitration.
The court need not order arbitration if it finds the petitioner has waived the right by its litigation conduct. Under Quach and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Sundance, no separate showing of prejudice is required to find waiver.
Arbitration may be refused if grounds exist at law or in equity to revoke the agreement — most often unconscionability under Civil Code section 1670.5, the doctrine applied in OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho.
The statute also permits a court to decline or stay arbitration in specified circumstances involving related litigation with third parties, to avoid conflicting rulings.
Judicial construction
The California Supreme Court abrogated the old arbitration-specific waiver test in Quach v. California Commerce Club, aligning state law with Morgan v. Sundance by eliminating any prejudice requirement, and it has applied the unconscionability ground rigorously in cases like OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho. (See Quach; Morgan; OTO v. Kho.)
Practice notes
When opposing a petition to compel, build the statutory exceptions: waiver from the employer’s litigation conduct (no prejudice needed) and revocation through procedural and substantive unconscionability. Always analyze whether the FAA governs the agreement, because FAA preemption can override a state-law defense that singles out arbitration.
Related on this site
Practitioner analysis, current as of June 2026 — not the statute itself. Statutes are amended and decisional law evolves; confirm the operative language and current authority at the official source before relying.