I'm providing this legal update without myself reading the opinion, for which I've provided a link.  I must admit that the summary sent to me is perplexing.  I will read this case when I have the time and will update this post at that time.  If anyone wants to beat me to it and explain the holding in a comment, please do feel free to do so.  That said, here's the summary:  

California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 410.42 renders null and void any provision in a construction contract "which purports to require any dispute between the parties to be litigated, arbitrated, or otherwise determined outside this state" where the construction project is located in California.

In the recent case of Templeton Development Corporation v. Superior Court (Dick Emard Electric, Inc.) (2006 SOS 5560) the Third District Court of Appeal held that section 410.42 nullifies a contractual provision requiring that parties to a construction dispute mediate outside California as a prerequisite to arbitration or litigation over their dispute.

Where defendant contractor refused to mediate in California, plaintiff subcontractor was not precluded from suing subject to stay so that action could be mediated or arbitrated in this state.