ADR Issues Pending In California Supreme Court
USE NOTE: The information in this bulletin, including the framing of the issue presented, is taken from the California Supreme Court’s official website. Citations to the court of appeal's opinion are for informational purposes only. The grant of review automatically vacates the opinion, which cannot be cited as precedent.
Review. May the parties to a commerical arbitration agreement contractually expand the trial court's jurisdiction to permit review of an arbitration award for legal error? Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTTV, Inc., formerly at 143 Cal.App.4th 207, S147767, rev. granted 12/1/06.
Review. May the parties to a commerical arbitration agreement contractually expand the trial court's jurisdiction to permit review of an arbitration award for legal error? Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTTV, Inc., formerly at 143 Cal.App.4th 207, S147767, rev. granted 12/1/06.
Confidentiality waiver. In an action to determine whether a valid oral settlement agreement was made during mediation, was one party estopped to claim the mediation proceeding was confidential (see Ev. Code 1115-1124) because she had voluntarily declared the facts to be true, stipulated to not disputing them, submitted evidence on them, and litigated their effect for over a year? Simmons v. Ghaderi, formerly at 143 Cal.App.4th 410, S147848, rev. granted 12/16/06.
Arbitration: discovery directed to 3rd party. (1) When an arbitrator issues a discovery order to a third party, who is not bound by the arbitration agreement, may that party seek judicial review of its objections to discovery? (2) If so, what's the scope of judicial review of such an order? Berglund v. Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery Center, S144813, formerly at 139 Cal.App4th 904, review granted 8/23/06.
Who decides if arbitration barred by statute of limitations? When a party seeks to compel arbitration, can the trial court determine if a particular claim is barred by a statute of limitations, as part of determining whether the party waived the right to arbitrate under CCP § 1281.2(a), or is application of a statute of limitations always resolved by the arbitrator? Wagner Construction Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp., S136255, unpublished opinion, review granted 10/26/05, SC081031.
Settlement agreement, confidentiality. If the parties to a settlement agreement prepared in mediation include an arbitration provision, is the agreement then deprived of confidentiality under Evidence Code § 1123 (b) – providing that such agreements are not protected from disclosure if signed by the settling parties and “[t]he agreement provides that it is enforceable or binding or words to that effect” — on the theory that by including the arbitration provision, the parties used “words to that effect” and thus impliedly indicated the agreement was to be enforceable or binding? Fair v. Bakhtiari, S129220, formerly at 122 Cal.App.4th 1457, review granted 1/12/05.
Uninsured motorist arbitration, costs/prejudgment interest. (1) Do the statutes providing for an award of costs and prejudgment interest to a prevailing party who obtains a judgment exceeding a statutory offer to compromise apply to arbitration proceedings on claims for uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits? (2) If so, can the costs and prejudgment interest, together with the compensatory damages awarded, exceed the insured’s policy limits? Pilimai v. Farmers Ins. Exchange Co., S133850, formerly at 127 Cal.App.4th 1093, review granted 7/13/05.
Health care arbitration. Did a written arbitration agreement that was entered into at the time of a patient’s first treatment by a chiropractor, stating it would “bind the patient and the health care provider . . . who now or in the future treat[s] the patient,” apply to a second treatment for a different condition two years later? Reigelsperger v. Siller, S131664, formerly at 125 Cal.App.4th 1008, review granted 4/13/05.
Disqualification of neutral. Here's a mouthful on disqualification that seems to be cropping up repeatedly, no doubt why the court granted review. The language is cribbed from the court's website, and I won't try to translate for fear of lousing it up. CCP § 170.1 (a)(8) provides that re appointment of a dispute resolution neutral (DNR), a judge shall be disqualified if he or she “has a current arrangement concerning prospective employment or other compensated service as a dispute resolution neutral or is participating in, or, within the last two years has participated in, discussions regarding such prospective employment or service” (1) Is the judge disqualified whenever an ADR provider has made a casual, informal, and unsolicited inquiry concerning the judge’s potential interest in serving as a dispute resolution neutral sometime in the future, or does the statute apply only when the judge has participated in more formal, serious discussions about prospective employment or service as a dispute resolution neutral? (2) If a judge is disqualified under § 170.1 (a)(8), must any rulings made by the judge after one of the parties requested appointment of a mediator or raised other issues with regard to alternative dispute resolution, but before the judge recused himself or herself, be vacated? Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, S131554, formerly at 125 Cal.App.4th 250, review granted 3/23/05 on the court’s own motion.
Arbitration: discovery directed to 3rd party. (1) When an arbitrator issues a discovery order to a third party, who is not bound by the arbitration agreement, may that party seek judicial review of its objections to discovery? (2) If so, what's the scope of judicial review of such an order? Berglund v. Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery Center, S144813, formerly at 139 Cal.App4th 904, review granted 8/23/06.
Who decides if arbitration barred by statute of limitations? When a party seeks to compel arbitration, can the trial court determine if a particular claim is barred by a statute of limitations, as part of determining whether the party waived the right to arbitrate under CCP § 1281.2(a), or is application of a statute of limitations always resolved by the arbitrator? Wagner Construction Co. v. Pacific Mechanical Corp., S136255, unpublished opinion, review granted 10/26/05, SC081031.
Settlement agreement, confidentiality. If the parties to a settlement agreement prepared in mediation include an arbitration provision, is the agreement then deprived of confidentiality under Evidence Code § 1123 (b) – providing that such agreements are not protected from disclosure if signed by the settling parties and “[t]he agreement provides that it is enforceable or binding or words to that effect” — on the theory that by including the arbitration provision, the parties used “words to that effect” and thus impliedly indicated the agreement was to be enforceable or binding? Fair v. Bakhtiari, S129220, formerly at 122 Cal.App.4th 1457, review granted 1/12/05.
Uninsured motorist arbitration, costs/prejudgment interest. (1) Do the statutes providing for an award of costs and prejudgment interest to a prevailing party who obtains a judgment exceeding a statutory offer to compromise apply to arbitration proceedings on claims for uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits? (2) If so, can the costs and prejudgment interest, together with the compensatory damages awarded, exceed the insured’s policy limits? Pilimai v. Farmers Ins. Exchange Co., S133850, formerly at 127 Cal.App.4th 1093, review granted 7/13/05.
Health care arbitration. Did a written arbitration agreement that was entered into at the time of a patient’s first treatment by a chiropractor, stating it would “bind the patient and the health care provider . . . who now or in the future treat[s] the patient,” apply to a second treatment for a different condition two years later? Reigelsperger v. Siller, S131664, formerly at 125 Cal.App.4th 1008, review granted 4/13/05.
Disqualification of neutral. Here's a mouthful on disqualification that seems to be cropping up repeatedly, no doubt why the court granted review. The language is cribbed from the court's website, and I won't try to translate for fear of lousing it up. CCP § 170.1 (a)(8) provides that re appointment of a dispute resolution neutral (DNR), a judge shall be disqualified if he or she “has a current arrangement concerning prospective employment or other compensated service as a dispute resolution neutral or is participating in, or, within the last two years has participated in, discussions regarding such prospective employment or service” (1) Is the judge disqualified whenever an ADR provider has made a casual, informal, and unsolicited inquiry concerning the judge’s potential interest in serving as a dispute resolution neutral sometime in the future, or does the statute apply only when the judge has participated in more formal, serious discussions about prospective employment or service as a dispute resolution neutral? (2) If a judge is disqualified under § 170.1 (a)(8), must any rulings made by the judge after one of the parties requested appointment of a mediator or raised other issues with regard to alternative dispute resolution, but before the judge recused himself or herself, be vacated? Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, S131554, formerly at 125 Cal.App.4th 250, review granted 3/23/05 on the court’s own motion.
