Employee handbook not a good place for an arbitration clause: ruled unenforceable as “take it or leave it”

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

We have here yet another opinion where an arbitration clause strikes out. Not surprising, in the light of the California Supreme Court “crack-down” more than a decade ago in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114. Zullo v. Superior Court (filed June 21, 2011, certified for publication July 12, 2011) […]

Continue to Article »

Sophisticated legal client who fails to read unexplained fee arbitration clause loses challenge to motion compelling arbitration

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

Client is represented by attorney under fee agreement containing no arbitration provision. Attorney changes firms and requests client to sign new fee agreement which includes arbitration clause. Client fails to read this clause. Under these circumstances, does the attorney have a fiduciary duty to explain the arbitration clause? In Desert Outdoor Advertising v. Superior Court […]

Continue to Article »

California Supreme Court will decide whether the “fraud exception” to the parol evidence rule permits evidence of a prior or contemporaneous representation as to the terms contained in a written agreement which are directly at variance with the terms of t

Posted by Dowling Aaron on

RiverIsland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Association (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 611, review granted April 20, 2011 (S190581) California’s parol evidence rule generally prohibits a party from introducing any parol evidence which varies or contradicts the terms of an integrated written agreement. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1856, subdivision (a).) Under the statutory “fraud […]

Continue to Article »

City of Lemoore MFA Court of Appeal Decision (2010)

Posted by Dowling Aaron on

Homebuilders Association of Tulare-Kings Counties (“HBA”) challenged City of Lemoore’s adoption in late 2006 and early 2007 of Fire Protection, Police, Park Land Acquisition, Community Recreation, Municipal Facilities, and Refuse Vehicle and Container Impact Fees. HBA claimed the fees violated the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) in identifying the use of the fee by facility type […]

Continue to Article »

Contractor, licensed as individual, may recover for work performed even though he used varied business name

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

Before any reader gets too excited with this caption, be aware that the California Business & Professions Code section 7031, subdivision (a) bar of compensation for contract work done by anyone other than a person or entity stated in a state-registered license is unaffected by the recent case discussed below. As I wrote in Opp […]

Continue to Article »

Saving Appeals and Assessing the Case

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

An appellate court can assist counsel on a discretionary basis by construing appeals from non-appealable orders. It may treat the matter as a writ petition. (Munger v. Gates (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1248, 1254.) It may view them as appeals from existing orders. (Vibert v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1525, […]

Continue to Article »

More on the question of whether an order is appealable: discovery sanctions and defaults

Posted by Steven Vartabedian on

In my June 2 blog article I discussed some general rules concerning whether a judgment is appealable. Today, the focus is on these two specific types of orders that have some tricky applications. The majority view is that discovery sanctions, regardless of amount, are not directly appealable, but are reviewable only on appeal after final […]

Continue to Article »