Hickenbottom v. Medical Solutions (4th Dist., 2026): Second Motion to Compel Arbitration Is a Renewed Motion

Court

Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist.

Decided

August 26, 2026

Case No.

D086542

In Hickenbottom v. Medical Solutions LLC, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an employer’s second motion to compel arbitration was a renewed motion governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b), because it sought the same relief as the first motion⁠—⁠even though it relied on a different arbitration agreement. Because the employer did not comply with section 1008, the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the motion, and the order denying it was not appealable. The court dismissed the appeal.

Background

Medical Solutions LLC (MedSol) is a healthcare staffing business that hired Derek Hickenbottom as a travel nurse in May 2022. During onboarding, he signed several documents, including an employee handbook and an Employee Agreement, each containing a different arbitration provision. A later Travel Assignment Agreement for a February 2023 hospital placement incorporated a separate 2023 arbitration agreement with terms of its own.

In March 2024, Hickenbottom filed a class action alleging wage and hour claims. MedSol moved to compel arbitration under the handbook provision. Hickenbottom argued that provision had been superseded by the 2023 agreement, and the trial court denied the motion.

Roughly a month later, MedSol filed a second motion to compel arbitration, this time relying on the 2023 agreement. It did not comply with section 1008 or submit an affidavit, taking the position that the statute did not apply. The trial court concluded the second motion was a renewed motion it lacked jurisdiction to hear, and MedSol appealed.

What the Court Held on the Renewed Motion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 limits repetitive motions. Subdivision (b) governs the renewal of a prior motion that seeks the same relief a court previously refused but rests on a different factual or legal basis. A renewed motion must be accompanied by an affidavit showing new or different facts, circumstances, or law, along with diligence; failure to comply deprives the court of jurisdiction under subdivision (e).

The court held that both of MedSol’s motions sought identical relief⁠—⁠an order compelling arbitration of Hickenbottom’s individual claims and dismissing his class claims. That the two motions relied on different arbitration provisions in different contracts did not change the fact that each asked the court for the same thing.

The court drew on California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga, where successive fee motions resting on different statutes still sought identical relief. It distinguished a validation-action case in which a changed contract changed the relief sought, reasoning that a motion to compel arbitration seeks only to move a set of claims from court to arbitration⁠—⁠the relief stays the same regardless of which agreement supplies the basis.

The FAA Preemption Argument

MedSol argued that applying section 1008 to a motion to compel arbitration singles out arbitration agreements for adverse treatment and is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. The court rejected that argument, explaining that its reading of the statute treats motions to compel arbitration the same as all other motions and turns on the nature of the relief requested, not on arbitration.

The court declined to treat the defective appeal as a writ petition. Because MedSol’s noncompliance left the trial court without jurisdiction to consider the second motion, the court could not direct that court to grant relief it had no power to order. It dismissed the appeal, awarding Hickenbottom his costs.