. . . Doesn’t Have To Raise In Complaint, With District Court Deciding the Issue. Smith v. JEM Group, Inc., Case No. 11-35964 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2013) (published) is a case deciding that a plaintiff opposing arbitration can challenge the validity in an opposition to compel arbitration by the defense, rather than […]
Fraud, Arbitrator Impartiality, Arbitrator Misconduct, and Arbitrator Exceeding Power Type Claims Could Not Be Found Immune From Review Based On Contractual Provision. In In re: Wal-Mart Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, Case No. 11-17778 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2013) (published), a district court confirmed an arbitration award allocating attorney’s fees in a
Party Can Possibly To Exposed For Sanctions, But Not Attorneys Under AAA Rules and CCP § 128.7. Well, here is a case which might bring some solace to attorneys representing clients in AAA arbitrations. Optimal Markets, Inc. v. Salant, Case No. H038571 (6th Dist. Nov. 26, 2013) (published) denied CCP § 128.7
However, The Arbitration Advisories Do Not Constitute The Official Position Or Policy Of The State Bar In his blog on California Mediation and Arbitration, co-contributor Marc has posted the list of “Arbitration Advisories” that have been created under the auspices of the Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration of the California State Bar. Though
$527 Million of the Award Was Prejudgment Interest/Attorney’s Fees. In March 2011, Starbucks prematurely ended a contract with Kraft Foods which was allowing the food company to sell bagged Starbucks coffee in grocery stores. Earlier, Kraft rejected Starbucks’ $750 million offer to end the arrangement. The matter went to arbitration, with Starbucks countering
Appellate Court Did Not Find Unenforceability, But Framed A Choice Based on Unequal Bargaining Leverage. Our local Santa Ana appellate court, in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Rylaarsdam, has sent a message in our opinion about attorney retainer agreements containing mandatory arbitration provisions. Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine, Case No. G047306 (4th
Also, Hong Kong Law Was Consonant With California Reciprocity Law on Fees. Dampier v. Solar & Environmental Technologies Corp. (SETC), Case No. G045805 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 8, 2013) (unpublished) (authoring justice: Justice Rylaarsdam), involves a case which co-contributors Marc and Mike were involved in, up to right before the
Cannot Leapfrog Fee Clauses in Other Entites’ Agreements into a Fee Award. Leapfrog. NYC. c1908-22. Library of Congress. Marik v. University Village, LLC, Case No. B247171 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 3, 2013) (unpublished) goes to show you that glaring arbitration results will be vacated. In this one, the appellate court
Court Can Award 1717 Fees With Enforceable Limitations–Such As, Did Adverse Party Acted Arbitrarily, Vexatiously, In Bad Faith Or Unreasonably–You Bethca! We like Abbey v. Fortune Drive Associates, LLC, Case No. A135062 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2013) (unpublished) for a lot, if not a couple of, reasons: (1) it talks about
Second District, Division One Disagrees With Contrary Conclusion Reached by First District, Division Two in Kors. After plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against their former attorneys, those attorneys successfully moved to compel arbitration in the pending lawsuit, with the lower court also awarding them $67,930.50 in attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in the
