Finley

Finley v. Saturn of Roseville

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 4th 1253·12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 561·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 601·2004 Daily Journal DAR 4939·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3546
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 2004C043997California2,402 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

In this wrongful termination action, plaintiffs appeal from a final judgment, which confirms a contractual arbitration decision in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in compelling arbitration, because the arbitration agreement contained a one-sided provision that required a written arbitration decision and a right to appeal only where the arbitration award exceeds $50,000. Plaintiffs further contend that the court erred in denying their appeal to a second arbitrator as untimely.

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we conclude that plaintiffs were not harmed by an unenforceable provision of the arbitration agreement. In the published portion, we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ motion to compel review by a second arbitrator. We therefore reverse the judgment.

Facts And Procedural History

In light of plaintiffs’ contentions on appeal, a complete review of the facts underlying the parties’ dispute is unnecessary. Defendants Bob Frink and Patrick Frink were the president and vice-president, respectively, of Saturn of Roseville. In October 1995, plaintiff Michael Finley (Finley) was hired as…

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.