Cases: Arbitration

Fourth District, Division Three Determined that Arbitrator’s Award Was Governed By Arbitration, Not Reference, Principles.      In our July 15, 2008 post on Patel v. Sagar, we discussed a situation where the Second District affirmed an arbitrator’s fee award based on the notion that the arbitrator has considerable leeway to apply “equitable principles” in awarding […]

Using “Splitting Cause of Action” Principles, Second District, Division Two Rules That Plaintiff Must Seek Fees In the First Lawsuit.      The next case reminds all litigators that courts dislike duplicative litigation where litigants seek to recoup fees that are more appropriately sought in a prior action.      That is exactly what happened in Cohen

   Fourth District, Division Three Dismisses Clients’ Appeal.      Clients filed a petition for attorney’s fee arbitration pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6200 et seq. They won, with their Former Attorney ordered to return $150,000 in fees and $3,524 in attorney’s fees. Former Attorney was not happy and petitioned to vacate the award,

  Mail Service Extension Rules Did Not Apply in MFAA Context.               The next case goes to show you how (1) the facts are usually outcome determinative, and (2) the specific context and promulgated rules in a statutory scheme may well prevail over a result that seems intuitive under a different set of rules.

Second District, Division Eight So Holds In Unpublished Decision Showing the Deference Given to Arbitral Decisions.             Any practitioner dealing with binding contractual arbitration will have read, many times we believe, the California Supreme Court’s decision in Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (1992).  Moncharsh gave broad deference to arbitration