Lilly v. Lilly

California Court of Appeal Mar 19, 1982 No. Civ. 62595Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an arbitrator's failure to comply with the time requirements of Rule 1605(b) of the Rules of Court constitutes reversible error, even if the issue was not raised in the trial court.

Issues

Whether the superior court erred in directing the case to arbitration.
Whether the superior court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for trial following arbitration.
Whether the arbitrator committed reversible error by continuing the action for more than 10 months.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that the arbitrator’s action violated rule 1605(b) of the Rules of Court and, therefore, rendered him subject to disqualification.”

“we conclude that delay by the arbitrator constituted reversible error.”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, Acting P. J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the superior court denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside judgment and specially set case for trial after judicial arbitration. We reverse.

[927]

The only statement of facts before us is that of appellant, since respondent has not filed a brief with this court, after a request to do so pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 17(b). Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of such rule, we accept appellant’s statement of facts as correctly stating the events hereinafter set forth. (See,

Shapiro

Cahill

(1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 772, 773-774 [33 Cal.Rptr. 601].)

On January 23, 1975, plaintiff, in propria persona, filed a complaint in the Ventura County Superior Court alleging conspiracy to cause “mental murder,” slander, mental disturbance and emotional distress. Plaintiff’s complaint sought damages in the amount of $1 million.

On December 5, 1979, a hearing was held in the above mentioned superior court, and the court ordered the case to arbitration. An arbitrator was selected on December 31, 1979. An arbitration hearing was set for February 21, 1980, but, by stipulation of the parties, the hearing was continued to April 16, 1980. The hearing was continued again, not by stipulation of the parties but by the arbitrator alone, until October 3, 1980.

On October 3, 1980, the parties participated in arbitration with representation of counsel. On October 13, 1980, the arbitrator decided that the plaintiff should take nothing by her complaint and filed such decision with the court. Judgment for the defendant was entered on November 3, 1980. On November 7, 1980, plaintiff’s attorney, for the first time, received notice of the arbitrator’s decision and notice of entry of judgment. On November 20, 1980, and again on December 4, 1980, plaintiff filed requests for trial following arbitration, but these requests were denied by the court as untimely. The plaintiff now brings this appeal.

On appeal, plaintiff makes three contentions as follows:

Lilly v. Lilly

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief