Bucur v. Superior Court CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Jun 21, 2013 No. E058450Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable, it only covers claims directly related to the termination of the hauling agreement, requiring the trial court to distinguish between arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims.

Issues

Whether the arbitration provisions in the contract are valid and enforceable.
Whether all claims brought by petitioners fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.

Disposition. Denied in part and granted in part, with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with real parties in interest that the arbitration provisions of the contract are valid and enforceable against petitioners.”

“the arbitration covers only claims directly related to the termination of the hauling agreement.”

Filed 6/21/13 Bucur v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

VIOREL I. BUCUR et al.,

Petitioners, E058450

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1300203)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Matthew C.

Perantoni, Judge. Denied in part and granted in part, with directions.

Law Offices of George A. Saba and George A. Saba for Petitioners.

No appearance for Respondent.

Littler Mendelson and Margaret H. Gillespie for Real Parties in Interest.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real parties

in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of

settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is

therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171,

178.)

Bucur v. Superior Court CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI J.

MILLER J.

AI Brief