Does a stay pending arbitration prevent an action at law from proceeding?

In Byerly v. Sale, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d 1312, 251 Cal.Rptr. 749, the court succinctly concluded in one paragraph that because a stay pending arbitration had been in effect for almost the entire life of the action at law filed by a party to the arbitration agreement, it was impossible for the plaintiff to proceed. ⁵ Consequently, the five-year period had not even remotely expired, so it was improper to dismiss the complaint. (Id. at p. 1314, 251 Cal.Rptr. 749.) Were Byerly the sole published authority, we could simply cite its admirably brief resolution of the issue. Unfortunately, there is other authority which we feel must first be discussed; since these cases generally fail to recognize the distinction between a trial court's jurisdiction over an action at law and the related contractual arbitration proceeding, we must parse their analyses as best we can between the two separate parts of our discussion.

2.

In Lockhart-Mummery v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, supra, 103 Cal.App.3d 891, 163 Cal.Rptr. 325, the plaintiff had filed what apparently was a malpractice [10 Cal.App.4th 1798] action. The defendant obtained an order to arbitrate pursuant to a contract between the parties (which presumably is similar to the contract between the parties before us); the court also stayed the action at law. (Id. at p. 893, 163 Cal.Rptr. 325.) The plaintiff failed to prosecute the arbitration

Page 684