Case Summaries

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[09/03] Allied Maritime, Inc. v. Descatrade SA
An order vacating the process of maritime attachment and garnishment issued on April 15, 2009 attaching defendant's assets to secure a putative foreign arbitral award and dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant’s bank account in Paris, France, the suspense account created by the bank in response to the attachment order, and any other intangible property arising from an electronic funds transfer.

[08/31] Cent. States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. O'Neil Bros. Transfer & Storage Co.
In a multi-employer pension fund administrator's suit against an employer seeking interim payment of withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, district court's grant of summary judgment for administrator is affirmed as defendant's default is governed by the provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 1399(c)(5)(B), and under that section, as interpreted reasonably by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the entire amount of the withdrawal payment is immediately payable upon default and that obligation is not deferred because of the pendency of arbitration.

[08/31] Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
In defendant's suit against a law firm, claiming that an arbitrator's award of $7,554,149.13 in attorney fees and expenses for the law firm, related to its representation of defendant in an underlying complex environmental litigation, is unconscionable and violates public policy, superior court's affirmance of the award is affirmed as, assuming that defendant's claim of unconscionability is subject to judicial review as a predicate for determining whether the arbitration award violates public policy, the claim is rejected on the merits as neither the fee agreement nor the award actually issued by the arbitrator is unconscionable under rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

[08/30] Next Step Med. Co., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Int'l

[08/30] Critzer v. Enos
In plaintiffs' suit against a homeowners association (HOA), and a property owner and its successor in interest, involving a dispute concerning a window installed in defendant-property owner's upstairs bathroom, trial court's order enforcing the parties' settlement is reversed where: 1) the order enforcing the settlement finally determined the rights of the parties, and therefore, the order is amended to include an appealable judgment; and 2) because there was neither an oral settlement all parties personally agreed upon, nor a written settlement signed by all of the parties, the court lacked authority under the summary procedure of section 664.6 to enforce any settlement.

[08/26] Bank of Am., N.A. v. UMB Fin. Servs., Inc.
In an appeal from a series of orders in which the district court declined to compel plaintiff to submit to arbitration and declined to stay litigation pending the outcome of such arbitration, the orders are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff never signed an agreement containing an arbitration clause, and the document plaintiff did sign, the employment agreement, did not incorporate the arbitration clause of the FINRA contracts by reference or otherwise; and 2) the court need not reach the question of waiver since the district court properly determined there was no existing right to arbitration in this case.

[08/25] Teamsters Local Union No. 89 v. Kroger Co.
In a union's suit against an employer to compel arbitration for violating the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by subcontracting out operations to third parties employing non-union members, a grant of union's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) neither defendant's subcontracting nor the parties' execution of the Letter of Understanding demonstrates an intent to exclude union's subcontracting grievances from arbitration under the agreement; and 2) defendant has failed to rebut the presumption in favor of arbitrability and the district court correctly compelled arbitration.

[08/23] Ruiz v. Podolsky
In a medical malpractice and wrongful death suit brought by decedent's wife and children against an orthopedic surgeon and other health care providers, judgment of the court of appeal is reversed and remanded as, in accordance with the intent of the Legislature that enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 1295 and related statutes, all wrongful death claimants are bound by arbitration agreements entered into pursuant to section 1295, at least when, as here, the language of the agreement manifests an intent to bind these claimants.

[08/19] Radford v. Shehorn
In defendant's motion to enforce a settlement agreement against the plaintiff, arising from plaintiff's petition in probate court challenging the defendant's distribution of trust assets established by their parents, trial court's conclusion that the first page of the two-page settlement was part of the agreement in granting the motion to enforce the settlement is affirmed as, although the trial court erred in admitting the mediator's declaration into evidence, the error was harmless as there is no reasonable probability that plaintiff would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error in admitting the mediator's declaration.

[08/17] Greenwood Corp. v. CompuCredit Corp.
The order of the district court denying certain credit providers' motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the arbitration agreement was void because the Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA) specifically prohibited provisions disallowing any waiver of a consumer's right to sue in court for CROA violations.

[08/13] Johnson v. Gruma Corp.
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of defendant, the order is affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator correctly read the arbitration clause to mean that the parties intended to be governed by the California Arbitration Act; and 2) the arbitrator did not violate California disclosure rules, and did not exceed his powers.

[08/13] Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC
In plaintiff's suit for injunctive relief, restitution, rescission, and damages both on her own behalf and as a class action lawsuit against an automobile dealer, claiming several causes of action including violation of the California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), trial court's denial of defendant's petition to compel arbitration is affirmed as the CLRA is not preempted by the FAA, and the arbitration clause at issue here required plaintiff to waive an unwaivable statutory right under the CLRA to bring a classwide arbitration or class action lawsuit, which violates the public policy, underlying these rights.

[08/12] Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge 1943 v. AK Steel Corp.
In a union's action against a steel company, pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, seeking an order to compel the company to arbitrate the substantive arbitrability of ninety-three grievances, district court's grant of summary judgment to the union ordering the parties to submit the question of the substantive arbitrability to an arbitrator is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Transition Agreement governs grievances which arise during the Transition period and are based on violations of the Transition Agreement; 2) the Transition Agreement did not include a "clear and unmistakable" provision that the substantive arbitrability of the union's grievances would be determined by an arbitrator, but rather, it explicitly exempted the Transition Agreement from the 2007 Agreement; and 3) the issue of substantive arbitrability of grievances arising under the Transition Agreement, as well as the antecedent question of whether a grievance arises under the Transition Agreement must be determined by a court.

[08/09] Idea Nuova, Inc. v. GM Licensing Group, Inc.
The dismissal of plaintiff's complaint to vacate an arbitral award in favor of defendant is affirmed where, by agreeing to submit disputes "to AAA arbitration for resolution," the parties incorporated the American Arbitration Association Commercial Arbitration Rules into their agreement, including Rule 48(c), providing for judicial confirmation of arbitral awards.

[08/06] Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Bundy
In defendants' arbitration demands on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, seeking classwide arbitration claims for unpaid wages and other related claims, trial court's order vacating the partial arbitration awards against Countrywide on the ground that the arbitrator committed a number of legal errors is reversed where: 1) because the parties unambiguously agreed that any award would be reviewed as it would be by a federal district judge applying the Federal Arbitration Act, the partial awards in this case are reviewed utilizing the vacatur provisions of Federal Arbitration Act which would be applied by a United States District Court judge; 2) under the vacatur provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, no grounds permitted the partial awards to be vacated; and 3) although it is uncertain whether the manifest disregard of the law vacatur rule remains extant, the rule is applied to this case and the federal excess of powers standard of judicial review to the partial rewards, and thus, the order vacating the partial arbitration awards is reversed.

Back to Main