Evans

Evans v. CENTERSTONE DEVELOPMENT CO.

Bad Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 151·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1812·2005 Daily Journal DAR 13504·35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 745·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9895
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 21, 2005G034551California6,316 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

After we decided two earlier appeals related to the disputes noted here, plaintiffs Kirk S. Evans (Evans), Kirk S. Evans, Inc., KSE Development, Inc., and the Kirk and Laurie Evans Trust now appeal from a judgment entered after confirmation of an arbitrator’s award. They also appeal from orders compelling arbitration, denying a petition to vacate or modify an arbitration award (this is not appealable but can be reviewed on appeal from the judgment (Mid-Wilshire Associates v. O’Leary (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1453-1454 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 862 ]), and denying and striking requests for trial de novo. They contend the arbitrator acted in excess of his powers and committed misconduct and that the order compelling arbitration was improper. We disagree with all of these assertions and affirm the judgment.

Defendants CenterStone Development Company, a California corporation (CenterStone), Ernest V. Castro, Sr., Harold G. Woods, Jr., Harri Keto, CenterStone Carlsbad, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company, CenterStone Cerritos, LLC, and Beaumont Holdings filed a motion for sanctions, arguing that plaintiffs’ briefs violated the Rules of Court and their appeal was frivolous. We…

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.