Facts Are Not Clear Cut To Require A Reversal As A Matter Of Law As In Recent 2/1 DCA Wilson Opinion. We accurately did predict that, post-Hohenshelt, many trial court decisions would be remanded to see if the employer had reasonable excuses to make untimely arbitration payment of expenses under CCP § 1287.97. That prediction
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 Garrett & Tully, P.C. v. Aliso Properties, LLC, Case No. B332463 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 9, 2025) (unpublished) was a situation where a lower court, in an arbitration award confirmation proceeding, awarded costs relating to the arbitration where
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 Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, Case No. B327524 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 10, 2025) (unpublished) was the granddaddy case which resulted in a California Supreme Court case on employers not making
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 In Springs v. SBM Site Services, Case No. G063924 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 23, 2025) (unpublished), the trial court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration because
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 In Howitson v. Evans Hotels, Case No. D085078 (4th Dist., Div. 1 October 20, 2025) (unpublished), defendant employer failed to pay an arbitration retainer within 30 days, leading Plaintiff to successfully move under CCP section 1281.98 of
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.
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
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.,
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
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
