Muao

Muao v. Grosvenor Properties, Ltd.

Good Law
122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 131·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4357·2002 Daily Journal DAR 7407·99 Cal. App. 4th 1085·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5894
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 2002A095772California3,156 words

Opinion

Opinion

Parrilli, J.

Roy Muao appeals from an order granting defendants’ petition to compel arbitration and dismissing his action for wrongful termination. In his briefs, he challenges only that part of the order directing arbitration. Defendants move to dismiss the appeal because Muao’s appellate claim is not reviewable at this time. We conclude that under California law, the appeal must be dismissed as premature. Additionally, we reject Muao’s argument that review of the arbitration order is permissible at this time under section 16(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act. ( 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(3).) However, to correct the erroneous dismissal of the action, we remand the matter to the trial court to vacate the dismissal and to dispose of defendants’ motion for a stay of the action pending arbitration.

Factual and Procedural Background

Muao sued his employer, Grosvenor Properties, Ltd., and certain current and former employees of the company (hereafter referred to collectively as Grosvenor), seeking money damages based on a claim of wrongful termination.

In lieu of an answer, Grosvenor petitioned to compel arbitration of Muao’s claims under sections 1281.2 and 1281.7 of the Code of Civil…

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.