Marracino v. Brandstetter

California Court of Appeal Mar 23, 1993 No. A056699Published

Before: Werdegar

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party cannot unilaterally withdraw a request for a trial de novo after the 30-day statutory period for filing such a request has expired, as there is no statutory authority for such withdrawal and it could prejudice the adverse party's right to trial.

Issues

Whether a trial court has the authority to permit a party to withdraw a request for trial de novo after the 30-day statutory period has expired.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Nothing in the statutory scheme governing judicial arbitration (§ 1141.10 et seq.) or in the Judicial Council rules grants the court the power to permit withdrawal of a request for trial de novo after the 30-day period has run.”

“allowing the unilateral withdrawal of a request for trial de novo after the statutory period has run would, we believe, create an impermissible risk of denying those adverse parties who relied on the original request their right to trial”

[545]

Opinion

WERDEGAR, J.

On appeal from an adverse judgment entered after a trial de novo, defendant Zachary Brandstetter contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to enter judgment on a judicial arbitration award. We disagree. Accordingly, we shall affirm.

Background

Plaintiffs William G. and Vivian D. Marracino sued defendant for breach of contract, fraud and other causes of action arising from a $34,000 loan they had made him. The matter was ordered to judicial arbitration. On November 6, 1989, the arbitrator issued an award for plaintiffs in the amount of $53,112.96 plus costs.

On November 14, 1989, while representing himself, defendant filed a timely request for trial de novo. On May 25, 1990, defendant substituted in counsel, who filed on his behalf a document entitled “Withdrawal of Request for Trial de Novo and Stipulation to Judgment Based on Arbitrator’s Award.” Plaintiffs thereupon moved to have the arbitrator’s award “corrected” to include a finding of fraud and for entry of judgment based on the award as modified. Defendant opposed plaintiffs’ motion and moved for entry of judgment based on the unmodified arbitrator’s award, in accordance with his aforesaid motion to withdraw request for trial de novo and stipulation to judgment.

The trial court denied both motions. At the hearing on defendant’s motion for entry of judgment, the judge explained: “You have filed a request for trial de novo and I know of no authority in the law that allows you after the 30 days has run to attempt retroactivity

[sic],

I think, to set aside that trial de novo.” Following a court trial at which defendant did not appear, plaintiffs were awarded $327,433.83, including prejudgment interest, punitive damages and court costs. Defendant timely appealed.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.20, subdivision (a) provides: “An arbitration award shall be final unless a request for a de novo trial is filed within 30 days after the date the arbitrator files the award with the court.” Rule 1616(a) of the California Rules of Court states that “Within 30 days after the arbitration award is filed with the clerk of the court, any party may request a trial by filing with the clerk a request for trial, with proof of service of a copy upon all other parties appearing in the case. . . . The 30-day

Marracino v. Brandstetter

AI Brief

WERDEGAR, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief