Kirschenman

Kirschenman v. Superior Court

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1231·30 Cal. App. 4th 832·36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 166·94 Daily Journal DAR 17021·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9229
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 1994A066767California905 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

Petitioners (defendants below and their attorney) seek a writ to vacate an order sanctioning them for failing to personally attend a mediation session and requiring them to participate in further mediation. Plaintiffs, real parties in interest, respond by urging us to rule that once an attorney orally agrees to mediate a dispute neither that attorney nor the client may withdraw consent absent court approval upon a showing of good cause; we hold otherwise. We grant relief because (1) the court had no authority to mandate mediation; (2) there was no enforceable agreement to mediate; and (3) in any event, there was no failure to comply with the court’s mediation order.

Petitioners are Wayne Kirschenman and Kirschenman Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter Kirschenman) and Attorney Robert D. Patterson who represents Kirschenman (one of 14 named defendants) in the underlying multiparty commercial litigation and related cross-actions. A status conference was held in the underlying case on April 15, 1994. Patterson appeared by telephone. The court asked the attorneys present if they were “interested in any kind of mediation on the case” and Patterson replied that he “would be willing to…

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.