Appellant law firm sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted respondent client’s application to correct and confirm a state bar arbitration award regarding the amount of a fee which respondent owed appellant.
Appellant law firm sought review of a decision by the trial court, which modified the amount that a state bar arbitration board stated that respondent clients owed to appellants because the state bar arbitration board made miscalculated the figures. Appellant argued that respondent’s action was time-barred, and that it was error for the trial court to correct the award. On appeal, the court affirmed and held that the arbitration award was in limbo until after any appeal of that award was concluded. The San Diego class action lawyer held that appellant’s separate trial action regarding the arbitration award completely preempted the arbitration award, and any confirmation and judicial efficiency dictated that the parties had to await completion of the trial before filing a petition to correct and confirm the award. Therefore, respondent’s petition was not time-barred. The court also held that because the judgment or order of the lower court was presumed correct, they would not second guess the trial court’s decision to correct the amount of the arbitration award.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court to modify an arbitration award to appellant law firm from respondent client because appellant’s separate trial court action tolled the time period which respondents had to seek confirmation of the award, and thus respondent’s action was not time-barred.
Appellants, the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board and the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, challenged the decision of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County (California) granting respondent liquor licensee’s petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the Board and the Department to vacate a decision suspending an on-sale alcoholic beverage license.
The Department found that the licensee allowed a person under age 21 to enter and remain in the licensed premises in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25665. The Department suspended the licensees’ license, and the Board upheld the decision. The trial court granted the licensees’ petition for a writ of mandamus ordering vacation of the order, and the court reversed the decision. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the Department that the licensees permitted a person under the age of 21 years, who was not drinking alcoholic beverages, to enter and remain in the bar with her husband and four other friends. The minor’s presence was not justified by an exception to § 25665 because she was not on lawful business in the establishment. The court noted that the Department had interpreted the exception as referring to those who entered the premises for the purpose of conducting their business therein, such as persons delivering telegrams or supplies. Because the minor’s husband and friends were in the bar merely as patrons of the licensees, the minor was not carrying on lawful business there within the meaning of § 25665.
The court reversed the trial court’s grant of the writ of mandamus.
Site Title 