Miriam A. Vogel

In this case, a commercial landlord and tenant arbitrated a dispute over fair market rental value under a lease renewal, using three real estate brokers as arbitrators. After the panel set the rent at $1.4 million per year in the tenant's favor, the landlord petitioned to vacate the award, alleging the neutral arbitrator failed to disclose prior business dealings between his employer and the tenant or its party arbitrator. The trial court vacated the award based on an appearance of bias from undisclosed relationships and contributions, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the neutral had no personal financial interest, made adequate initial disclosures, and the additional facts did not require vacatur under the disclosure standards for arbitrators. The court reviewed the issue de novo and distinguished the facts from cases involving attorney-arbitrators.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case arose when a law firm's office manager forged the lawyer's signature to open bank accounts, deposited client trust funds, and stole the money, leading the clients to sue the lawyer, who then cross-complained against the banks for negligence in opening and handling the accounts. The banks demurred on the ground that they had no contractual relationship with the lawyer and thus owed him no duty of care. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed the cross-complaint against the banks. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the banks' only contracts were with the forger and that no duty extended to the non-customer lawyer whose name was misused, as foreseeability alone does not create liability and any broader duty should be addressed by the Legislature.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute between Jakks Pacific, Inc. and THQ Inc. over the appointment of a neutral arbitrator under their contract for a video game manufacturing venture, after they could not agree on the selection process. Jakks argued that the five candidates nominated by the trial court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 must make the impartiality disclosures required by section 1281.9 before the parties could select or the court could appoint an arbitrator, and sought to disqualify those who had not done so. The court held that disclosures are not required until a person is actually selected or appointed and notified as the proposed neutral arbitrator. This conclusion followed from the plain language of section 1281.9, which ties the disclosure obligation to when a person "is to serve as a neutral arbitrator" and requires written disclosure within 10 days of notice of the proposed nomination or appointment.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over $44.63 in unpaid overtime wages owed to an off-duty police officer who worked one day on a film production, where the payroll company had used an incorrect formula. After the individual claim settled for $10,500 with the plaintiff designated as the prevailing party, he sought approximately $46,000 in attorney fees under Labor Code provisions authorizing recovery of reasonable fees for wage and pay stub violations. The trial court denied the fee request entirely, citing the small amount in controversy, limited litigation after denial of class certification, and excessive hours billed. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statutes entitled the plaintiff to reasonable fees as a matter of right and that the record supported an award of $500 given the straightforward nature of the dispute and lack of any class action.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a challenge to the City of Los Angeles's municipal ordinance authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used to solicit prostitution, after Richard Reinsdorf's Jeep was seized following his 2005 arrest. The trial court ruled in Reinsdorf's favor, finding the ordinance preempted by state law, and awarded him attorney fees. On appeal, the court initially reversed but later reconsidered after the California Supreme Court decided O'Connell v. City of Stockton, which held that a similar Stockton ordinance was preempted. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Los Angeles ordinance is preempted because it conflicts with or enters a field fully occupied by state law under the California Constitution, as state statutes comprehensively regulate prostitution offenses and vehicle forfeitures. The court also denied additional attorney fees on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether engineers hired through private contracting firms to perform work for the County of Los Angeles qualified as common law employees entitled to civil service protections and retirement benefits under the county's plan. The plaintiffs, who had signed agreements acknowledging they were not county employees and were paid solely by the contractors, filed a class action after the county denied their claims. The trial court ruled against them on threshold issues including statutes of limitations, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the county had properly outsourced the work under its charter and Government Code section 31000. The core reasoning was that the engineers did not qualify as employees under the County Employees Retirement Law because their compensation was not fixed by the board of supervisors, they were not on the county payroll, and the contractors were solely responsible for their pay and benefits.

labor & employment