Also, Whether The Employer Is In Default Is An Arbitrator Decision. In Sanders v. Superior Court, Case No. B340707 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 6, 2025) (published), the appellate court decided that the FAA did not preempt CCP § 1281.98(a)(1), which gives employers a strict 30-day deadline to pay arbitration expenses under penalty of […]
MFAA Deadlines Are Strict, Not Subject To CCP § 473 Relief. Plaintiff/former client in Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck v. Shah, Case No. H051614 (6th Dist. Apr. 11, 2025) (unpublished) was unhappy that her former counsel sent an outstanding $200,000 receivable notice even though they were instrumental in working up a case resulting in
Also, Appeal Sanctions Were Warranted For A Frivolous Appeal, But Matter Remanded To Trial Judge To Determine Appropriate Amount Given Conclusory Support For The Fee Request. In Plantation at Hayward I, LLC v. Plantation at Hayward I, LLC (Catanzarite), Case No. G062909 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 10, 2025) (published), plaintiff’s attorney losing in
Matter Still In Flux, Although Opinion Found Most Intermediatory California Appellate Court Agree With No Preemption Conclusion, But With Federal Judges Split On The Issue. The 1/1 DCA in Cohn-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc., Case No. A168297 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 29, 2025) (partially published) sided with its earlier interpretation in Keeton
Dueling Appellate Sanctions Requests Were Denied Also. In Rivas v. Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc., Case No. B337901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 27, 2025) (unpublished), parties in an employment dispute involving common law and FEHA claims proceeded to an arbitration, with plaintiff eventually winning $30,000 on an interactive-process claim only. Later, the arbitrator awarded
FAA Governance Of The Arbitration Process Was Dispositive. In Boub v. Prime Healthcare, Case No. B334972 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 25, 2025) (unpublished), a lower court’s order denying a defendant employer’s motion to compel arbitration for failure to pay arbitration expenses within 30 days under CCP § 1281.98 was reversed because the FAA
Webinar Took Place Almost 1 ½ Months After The Award, Involving General Tips On Fee Battles In Arbitration. In Silva v. The Signature Motors LLC, Case No. H051552 (6th Dist. Jan. 14, 2025) (unpublished), an arbitrator awarded plaintiff almost $60,000 in attorney’s fees and costs (90% of the request), and the arbitrator 1 ½
Designer Did Not Have To Meet Payment Obligations By Contractor, So There Was No Waiver Or Forfeiture. Facts many times make the difference in the resolution of a dispute. And that conclusion rang true in Mooradian v. Ingjaldsdottir, Case No. B331561 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 26, 2024) (unpublished). There, homeowners, designer, materialman,
Family Code Section 3153 And CRC 5.241 Supported This Conclusion. In Marriage of Thompson, Case No. B332150 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 24, 2024) (unpublished), ex-spouses were embroiled in a “high conflict” custody dispute over their minor child, with the family court appointing a family law attorney to represent the minor child and with
Denial Of Motion To Compel Arbitration Is Reversed And Matter Ordered To Arbitration. CCP § 1281.98 is the 30-day window for an employer to pay arbitration expenses under penalty of going to court rather than arbitration under the contractual arbitration clause with employee. This statute has produced much litigation; and, as we have indicated
