Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.4 provides that “[i]f a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4; Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1551.

A “controversy” for purposes of this section is “any question arising between parties to an agreement whether such question is one of law or of fact or both.” Code Civ. Proc., §1280(c). “A controversy can be a single question of law or fact, and a stay shall be issued upon proper motion if the court has ordered arbitration of a controversy that is also an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before it. Thus, a single overlapping issue is sufficient to require imposition of a stay.” Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1551.

The purpose of section 1281.4 is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until the arbitration is resolved. MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660. Preserving the arbitrator’s jurisdiction through a stay of related litigation is essential to the enforceability of an arbitration agreement because, otherwise, a party could simply litigate claims that it agreed to arbitrate. MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660. “In the absence of a stay, the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective.” Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152.

For matters that have been submitted to arbitration, therefore, a court has only vestigial jurisdiction and it may not lift the stay when it would interfere with the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 238. The policy underlying the breadth of the stay provision in section 1281.4 is generally cited as protecting the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved, so that proceedings in the trial court do not disrupt the arbitration proceedings and render them ineffective. Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1796; Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 488-489.

The court of appeal in Titan observed, in fact: “‘[A]n arbitration has a life of its own outside the judicial system.’ [Byerly v. Sale (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1312,] 1316. The trial court may not step into a case submitted to arbitration and tell the arbitrator what to do and when to do it: it may not resolve procedural questions, order discovery, determine the status of claims before the arbitrator or set the case for trial because of a party’s alleged dilatory conduct. It is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to resolve such questions.” Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 489.

Under California law, a trial court may properly lift a stay of proceedings pursuant to the portion of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 that provides that a trial court may stay an action until arbitration is completed, “or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Tunney v. Lawrence (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1165,1172. A trial court is granted “discretion to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration only under circumstances in which lifting the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.” MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660.

Once a controversy is submitted to arbitration, it remains before the arbitrators until they have completed their determination of the matters unless the parties mutually agree to withdraw it. Gerard v. Salter (1957) 146 Cal.App.2d 840; see also Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11-13 (discussion of legislative history of California arbitration statutes).