Representative Cases

Two doctors formed a practice engaged in medicine and particularly radiology. Over the years the partnership expanded to include four doctors. Later, one of the partners broke his neck in a skiing accident, which left him unable to fully use his right hand. Given this disability, the doctor chose not to perform invasive radiological procedures such as angiography. The remaining partners declared that as a result of his disability, he was a "dissolving partner" within the meaning of the partnership agreement. Thereafter, the partners were unable to agree upon a valuation of his partnership interest and filed a demand for arbitration of the valuation issue. The arbitrator awarded the doctor a total of $450,000. Appellant sought to avoid confirmation of the arbitration award by challenging the legality of the underlying contract, claiming it contained statutorily prohibited non-compete provisions.

Dispute involving a construction defect claim and the enforceability of arbitration agreements. Developer sought to compel arbitration under a home warranty agreement, while the homeowners argued the agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable. The warranty company argued for its right to a stay under Code of Civil Procedure during the pendency of the arbitration ordered by a federal district court on a related case.

Case involving defendant's delay in asserting the right to arbitration, which led to the plaintiff expending substantial time and money conducting class discovery, much or all of which "would be rendered useless" if the matter proceeded to arbitration given a class action waiver in the arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff appealed a judgment confirming an arbitration award. The award was made by an arbitration panel at the conclusion of an arbitration proceeding between partners in a general partnership. The award appointed one of the Panel members as receiver to oversee the dissolution of the partnership and the sale of the partnership property. Plaintiff contends: (1) the award should be vacated because the Panel exceeded its powers by failing to apply California law to the dispute; and (2) the award should be corrected to require that the receiver be sworn and bonded as mandated by Code of Civil Procedure section 567.