ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> CalBizLit

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Litigation

: CalBizLit

Attorneys' Fees in Motions to Compel Arbitration

By Bruce Nye

ADVERTISEMENTS

California's appellate courts have issued many decisions in the past several years on binding arbitration provisions in consumer and employment contexts, which are typically non-negotiated contracts of adhesion.  But here's a commercial arbitration case (involving negotiated contracts and equal and sophisticated parties) with implications for all disputes over contractual arbitration provisions.

More after the jump.


In Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway (2008) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Fourth Appellate Dist., No. D049612), the contract contained an arbitration provision which might or might not have applied and a provision providing for attorneys' fees to be awarded the prevailing party in a dispute. Otay moved to compel arbitration.  The court found that the provision did not apply, and denied the motion.  Expressway then moved for an order awarding it fees.  And the Court of Appeal held that (a) under the attorneys' fees provision, fees were mandatory to the prevailing party  and (b) by defeating the attempt to circumvent the courts and force arbitration, Expressway had prevailed, and fees were awardable at that point.  This apparently was the case regardless of the ultimate outcome in court of the Otay v. Expressway dispute.

The case has two implications in the consumer  and employment arenas: first, under the court's logic, if arbitration provisions do in fact apply, a company or employer who successfully moves to compel should likewise be entitled to fees, regardless of how the rest of the case comes out.  Second, a company or employer should be careful that its claim to an arbitration right is meritorious, or it could be looking at a mandatory fee award against it before the case even gets off the ground.  And can this logic apply to statutory fee situations, such as FEHA as well?  Can a plaintiff who successfully resists arbitration immediately move for a fee award?  Time will tell.

Thanks to Wage Law for catching this.

Full post as published by CalBizLit on January 23, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Blog Posts
Search Blog Directory:

Search Blog Directory:

Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.3732 secs (from cache 04/23/14 05:40:08)