Marracino

Marracino v. Brandstetter

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 4th 543·17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 700·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 289·93 Daily Journal DAR 3744·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2120
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 23, 1993A056699California1,424 words

Opinion

Opinion

Werdegar, J.

On appeal from an adverse judgment entered after a trial de novo, defendant Zachary Brandstetter contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to enter judgment on a judicial arbitration award. We disagree. Accordingly, we shall affirm.

Background

Plaintiffs William G. and Vivian D. Marracino sued defendant for breach of contract, fraud and other causes of action arising from a $34,000 loan they had made him. The matter was ordered to judicial arbitration. On November 6, 1989, the arbitrator issued an award for plaintiffs in the amount of $53,112.96 plus costs.

On November 14, 1989, while representing himself, defendant filed a timely request for trial de novo. On May 25, 1990, defendant substituted in counsel, who filed on his behalf a document entitled “Withdrawal of Request for Trial de Novo and Stipulation to Judgment Based on Arbitrator’s Award.” Plaintiffs thereupon moved to have the arbitrator’s award “corrected” to include a finding of fraud and for entry of judgment based on the award as modified. Defendant opposed plaintiffs’ motion and moved for entry of judgment based on the unmodified arbitrator’s award, in accordance with his aforesaid motion 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.