Invicta Plastics, U.S.A., Ltd. v. Superior Court

Opinion

BEACH, J.

Petition for writ of mandate.

[192]

Background:

Real party in interest (Moss), plaintiff in the trial court, filed an action against his employer, petitioner here and defendant in the trial court, alleging wrongful discharge and breach of oral contract. Plaintiff filed an election to submit the cause to judicial arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1141.12, subd. (b)(ii) and rule 1600(b) Cal. Rules of Court.) He, at that time, “agree[d] that the arbitration award shall not exceed the total sum of $15,000.” About seven months later, plaintiff’s new counsel moved “for leave to file a second amended complaint and for withdrawal of the case from arbitration.” Both motions were granted. Defendant petitions this court for writ of mandate to compel the superi- or court to vacate its order granting plaintiff’s motion to withdraw from arbitration. We issued an alternative writ and heard the matter.

We are now of the opinion that the alternative writ was improvidently granted and therefore now discharge and vacate the alternative writ and deny the petition.

Discussion:

There is little quarrel with the first three of petitioner’s arguments, as general propositions of law. (1) Mandate is the appropriate means of relief if the superior court acted in excess of its jurisdiction or abused its discretion by permitting the case to be withdrawn from arbitration. (2) The policy of the law is to favor, encourage and where possible to resolve doubts in favor of the arbitrability of claims. (3) There is no basis for unilaterally withdrawing a case from judicial arbitration. This third point is not the case here. There was no independent “unilateral” action by the plaintiff in the trial court. Rather, there was a noticed motion made to the court. It was a request properly made, noticed, opposed and heard. It was after such hearing that the court gave permission for the withdrawal. The action was the court’s. Thus the matter is reduced to determining whether as claimed by petitioner in his fourth contention, the court acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion in granting the motion.

Obviously the integrity of the judicial process does not permit litigants to play fast and loose with legal procedures. Accordingly, in the absence of express authority giving a party the right to some change or amendment, a court should not permit a change sought by a party sole