Hire corporate lawyer

Appellant patron sought review of a decision of the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal (California), which reversed the trial court's dismissal of appellant's personal injury suit against respondent cocktail lounge owners. The trial court had dismissed the suit based on violations by appellant's attorney of local court rules.

Appellant patron's personal injury suit against respondent cocktail lounge owners was dismissed after appellant's Hire corporate lawyer committed numerous violations of local court rules that had been promulgated to implement the 1990 Trial Court Delay Reduction Act, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 68600 et seq. (Act). The court of appeal reversed, holding that the grant of power under Cal. Gov't Code § 68608(b) to dismiss actions was not intended to change the rule, previously enacted at Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 575.2(b), prohibiting dismissal as a sanction when rule violations were attributable to counsel rather than the party. The supreme court affirmed the court of appeal, reasoning that Cal. Gov't Code § 68608(b), by its terms conferred only sanctioning powers "authorized by law," thus incorporating the limitation under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 575.2(b).

The decision was affirmed. Appellant patron's personal injury suit against respondent cocktail lounge owners was improperly dismissed for appellant's attorney's violation of local court rules, because that sanction could not be imposed where the noncompliance was counsel's sole responsibility.

Plaintiff trust filed suit for breach of contract and other claims against defendants, two affiliated companies, only one of which was a party to the contract, and an individual who controlled the companies. An arbitrator found in favor of the trust on the contract claim, but defendants otherwise prevailed. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, confirmed the arbitrator's award and entered judgment accordingly. The companies appealed.

The court found that, as provided by the rules of the arbitration services provider selected by the parties, the arbitrator, not a court, determined what issues were arbitrable. Consequently, the court deferred to the arbitrator's determination that the issue of joint and several liability on the breach of contract claim was arbitrable. The arbitrator's finding of joint and several liability was rationally related to the parties' purchase contract. It was not derived from an extrinsic source. And because the arbitrator's award of damages consisted of the unpaid portion of the purchase price, plus interest, the remedy was rationally related to the breach. As to the timeliness of the final award under the provider's rules, the arbitrator's interpretation and application of the rules could not be judicially reviewed on the merits, as the parties had not agreed to such expanded review. The court independently concluded that a suit filed against the arbitrator by the individual defendant to recover arbitral fees and costs was barred by arbitral immunity and would not have caused a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator's impartiality.

The court affirmed the trial court's order and judgment.