Cases: Arbitration

Arbitration: Trial Court, On An Arbitration Award Confirmation Petition, Erroneously Included Arbitration Costs Where Arbitrator Did Not Award Them Before Issuance Of The Arbitration Award

Cases: Arbitration

Arbitrator Was The One Who Had To Do So, With The Presumption Being Costs Were Disallowed. Garrett & Tully, P.C. v. Aliso Properties, LLC, Case No. B332463 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 9, 2025) (unpublished) was a situation where a lower court, in an arbitration award confirmation proceeding, awarded costs relating to the arbitration where […]

Arbitration:  Hohenshelt, The Granddaddy Case, Remanded To See If There Was A Plausible Excuse For Defendant Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay Arbitration Expenses And Whether The Delay Caused Harm To Plaintiff Employee

Cases: Arbitration

We Predicted That These Cases Would Be Remanded To Have Lower Courts Determine If There Was A Legitimate Excuse For The Delayed Payment.                 Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, Case No. B327524 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 10, 2025) (unpublished) was the granddaddy case which resulted in a California Supreme Court case on employers not making

Arbitration, Employment, Sanctions: Trial Court Correctly Determined That Employer Breached Parties’ Arbitration Agreement By Failing To Timely Pay Arbitration Fees Where Employer Argued 30-Day Deadline Was Never Triggered Because Employer’s Counsel, Not Employer, Was Served With The Arbitration Invoice

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Sanctions

However, The 4/3 DCA Reversed And Remanded For The Trial Court’s Determination As To Whether Employer’s Failure To Timely Pay Arbitration Fees Should Be Excused Pursuant To Hohenshelt. In Springs v. SBM Site Services, Case No. G063924 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 23, 2025) (unpublished), the trial court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration because

Arbitration, Employment, Sanctions: Trial Court’s Grant Of 1281.98 Motion To Return Case To Court When Employer Failed To Pay Arbitration Fees Within 30 Days And Award Of Related Monetary Sanctions Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Sanctions

Section 1281.98 Was Inapplicable Because The Arbitration Agreement Was Governed By The Provisions Of The Federal Arbitration Act. In Howitson v. Evans Hotels, Case No. D085078 (4th Dist., Div. 1 October 20, 2025) (unpublished), defendant employer failed to pay an arbitration retainer within 30 days, leading Plaintiff to successfully move under CCP section 1281.98 of

Arbitration:  Returning Case To Court Based On Tardy Employer Payment Of Arbitration Expenses Reversed Because The Error Was An Operational Mistake

Cases: Arbitration

However, CCP Section 1281.99 Sanctions Award Was Affirmed For Employee’s Time Incurred To Pursue Efforts Based On Employer’s Tardiness. We predicted that many decisions under the employer payment deadline of Civil Code sections1281.97 and 1281.98 would be reversed or reversed/remanded under the peculiar circumstances of a matter after the California Supreme Court decided Hohenshelt v.

Arbitration: For 30-Day Employer Deadline To Pay Arbitration Expenses, Hohenshelt Decision Causing Remands Or Affirmance Of Trial Court Finding Justification For Later Payment Timing

Cases: Arbitration

We Predict More Remands For Pre-Hohenshelt Rulings. Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.5th 310 (2025) changed the strict application of CCP sections 1281.97 and 1281.98 in regards to employers paying arbitration expenses within 30 days of an invoice under penalty of having to return to court, finding that tardy payments could be forgiven for good

Arbitration: Where Defendant Paid On Last Day But There Was A Lag Due to Electronic Payment Transmission, Plaintiff Was Not Entitled To CCP Section 1281.98 Late Payment Fees

Cases: Arbitration

Defense Conduct Was Not Willful, Grossly Negligent, or Fraudulent Under Hohenshelt. We have now one of first opinions, although unpublished, which deals with how CCP section 1281.98 tardy payment of fees are dealt with, given the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.5th 310 (2025). In Wilson v. TAP Worldwide, Inc.,

Arbitration, Employment, Reasonableness Of Fees: Lower Court Did Not Err By Reducing $17,653.50 Fee Request For CCP § 1281.98 Sanctions Down To A $2,060 Fee Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Employment, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Fee Entitlement Still Allowed A Determination Of Reasonableness, With Record Supporting An Excessive Fee Request.                Reasonableness of a fee request is simply an important issue all clients and attorneys must consider when a fee/sanctions petition is filed.  Where an excessive, unreasonable request is made, the lower court has a range of options, from denying

Arbitration: Where Prevailing Party In An Arbitration Failed To Request Attorney’s Fees In An Answering Statement And The Arbitrator Refused to Award Fees, Superior Court Had No Jurisdiction To Award Fees . . .

Cases: Arbitration

Only The Arbitrator Had The Authority.                Claimant prevailed in an arbitration, but it failed to request attorney’s fees as required by AAA rules in claimant’s answering statement.  The arbitrator refused to award fees based on this omission.  Claimant then sought fees from the lower court when petitioning to confirm the award.  The damages award

Arbitration: California Supreme Court Confirms That CCP § 1281.98 Payment Deadlines Are Not Preempted By The FAA

Cases: Arbitration

However, CCP § 473 Principles Can Excuse An Untimely Payment By A Company Or Employer Desiring Arbitration With Respect To Tardy Payment Of Employee’s Or Consumer’s Arbitration Expenses.                Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, Case No. S284498 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 11, 2025) (published) finally resolved an intermediate appellate split in thinking on whether the CCP

Scroll to Top