Following Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790 and not Preston v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 402, this decision holds that once a trial court grants a motion to compel arbitration, it retains only vestigial jurisdiction which does not extend to making any substantive rulings on the parties’ claims or defenses.  Hence, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the case for the plaintiff’s failure to diligently pursue arbitration.  The defendant’s only remedy for such delay is to commence the arbitration itself and ask the arbitrator to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for lack of diligent prosecution or to terminate the arbitration, thus reinvesting the trial court with jurisdiction to deal with the claims substantively.  But the Court of Appeal doesn’t buy plaintiff’s excuse of being unable to afford the arbitration fees as the reason for not prosecuting the arbitration diligently.  Plaintiff should have brought her inability to afford arbitration up in opposition to the motion to compel–or have requested relief from the arbitrator.