 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dibble v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County11/29/1999
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. APPEAL treated as ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for Writ of Mandate. Granted. (Jules E. Fleuret, Judge.)
Case law holds generally that, where one party to a multi-party judicial arbitration proceeding requests a trial de novo, the entire arbitration award is vacated and the whole case must be tried. A limited exception has been recognized, under which an award in favor of one party may stand despite a trial de novo request by another, where the two parties' claims are legally and factually unrelated. We must decide whether that exception applies here. We conclude that, if the exception is valid at all in view of the governing statutes and court rules, it has no application in this case.
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Michael Dibble, Sr. (Father) and Michael Dibble, Jr. (Son) brought a combined action for wrongful death and personal injuries. Father's wrongful death claim alleged his daughter, Victoria Dibble, died as a result of a collision between a vehicle in which she was a passenger and a truck owned and operated by defendants. Son's personal injury claim alleged he also was a passenger in the vehicle and was injured as a result of the collision.
Concurrently, Son brought a separate action for wrongful death and personal injuries. Son's wrongful death claim alleged his mother, who was driving the vehicle in which he was a passenger, died in the collision. Son also alleged damages based on his own injuries and on witnessing his mother's death.
The lower court ordered the actions consolidated, and Father and Son filed an amended complaint asserting each of the claims noted above and adding a claim based on Son witnessing Victoria Dibble's death. The case went to judicial arbitration (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1141.10 et seq.), and Father was awarded $300,000 and Son $325,000. Son timely requested a trial de novo pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.20. No other party requested a trial de novo.
The clerk entered judgment for Father on the arbitration award pursuant to section 1141.23. Defendants objected to entry of the judgment based on Son's trial de novo request. They also moved to vacate the judgment based on the same ground. The lower court denied the motion, and defendants appealed from the order denying the motion.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Appealability
Father argues the lower court's order denying defendants' motion to vacate the judgment in favor of Father is non-appealable. He points out that a judgment based on an arbitration award is, by statute, "not subject to appeal" (§ 1141.23) and that this court has held a denial of a motion to vacate a judgment is not appealable if the judgment itself was not appealable. (See Rojes v. Riverside General Hospital (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1161, overruled on another point in Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1607; see also Blue Mountain Development Co. v. Carville (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1010, disapproved on another point in Passavanti v. Williams, supra, at p. 1607, fn. 5.)
In Cabrera v. Plager (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 606, the court held an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment based on an arbitration award was appealable even though the judgment itself was not. The court reasoned that, under section 904.1, subdivision (a)(2), an appeal may be taken from "an order made after a judgment made appealable by paragraph (1)" of that subdivision. Since a judgment on an arbitration award satisfies the criteria for appealability under section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1), the court concluded an order denying a motion to vacat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|