Gastelum v. ReMax Int'l, No. B263213 (D2d5 Feb. 11, 2016)
An employment dispute gets compelled to arbitration, but the employer fails to front the costs, as required under Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000). So the arbitrator’s outfit refuses to proceed. Given that, the trial court lifts the stay pending arb. Defendant appeals.
But the order isn’t appealable. It is not the functional equivalent of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, which is appealable by statute. Contrary to earlier cases, this wasn’t an order that affirmatively stayed an arbitration., but the converse: an order that found a continued stay of ligation to be inappropriate. That kind of order doesn’t fall within the scope of any category of statutorily appealable orders whether under the Arbitration Act or Code of Civil Procedure § 904.1, which lists the various authorized appeals. So this appeal gets dismissed.
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's Not a Debate
Taylor v. Tesla , No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024) Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action ...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
No comments:
Post a Comment