Mentzer

Mentzer v. Hardoin

Bad Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1015·28 Cal. App. 4th 1365·34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 214·94 Daily Journal DAR 14007·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7662
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 4, 1994B076831California2,982 words

Opinion

Opinion

Turner, J.

I. Introduction

In this case, we bring into question a practice followed in some superior courts in Los Angeles County. Some superior courts do not file judicial arbitration awards when they are delivered to the court. Instead, some courts date-stamp the awards when received. The awards are then held outside the case file until the time for filing a trial de novo request has expired. Then, and only then, are the awards stamped as filed and placed in the superior court file. This practice is set forth in paragraph 5.10 of the Los Angeles Superior Court Judicial Arbitration Handbook, effective March 31, 1989 (Handbook). This practice conflicts with the requirement imposed by Government Code section 69846.5 that documents be filed the date they are received by the court clerk. In this opinion, we hold that the practice outlined in paragraph 5.10 of the Handbook is invalid, unwise, and unnecessary.

As a result of the confusion created by this questionable practice, the trial court erroneously concluded defendant Kristine Louise Hardoin’s trial de novo request was untimely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1141.20.) We reverse the order striking her trial de novo request and the judgment…

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.