Calderon

Calderon v. Kane

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 687·36 Cal. App. 4th 1663·43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 480·95 Daily Journal DAR 9780·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5765
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 21, 1995A067726California1,789 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

In this case we are called upon to consider the consequences of the voluntary dismissal of a postarbitration request for a trial de novo. A judicial arbitrator’s award was issued in favor of Susan Kane and Theodore Abbott (Kane) in a case brought by Miriam G. Calderon and Orlando Espinoza (Calderon). Calderon, the losing party, then sought a trial de novo. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1141.20.) Thereafter, Calderon voluntarily dismissed tiie action without prejudice. (§581, subd. (b)(1).) Calderon challenges the trial court ruling which concluded that the action’s dismissal triggered finalization of the arbitration award under section 1141.20. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

The essential facts can be briefly stated. The underlying claims all arise out of an allegedly defamatory letter written by Kane to Calderon in January 1992 in connection with a real property transaction. The letter was copied to the parties’ respective real estate agents and the escrow agent. Calderon sued Kane, alleging causes of action based upon defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court referred the matter to mandatory judicial arbitration on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.