Cheng-Canindin

Cheng-Canindin v. Renaissance Hotel Associates

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1020·50 Cal. App. 4th 676·57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 867·96 Daily Journal DAR 13193·12 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 225
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 30, 1996A071368California6,574 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haerle, J.

I. Introduction

Respondent Georgina Cheng-Canindin brought a wrongful termination suit against the owners and management of her former employer, the Parc Fifty Five Hotel (the Hotel). Appellants Renaissance Hotel Associates and Lawrence Chan are two of the defendants in the wrongful termination action who petitioned the trial court to compel respondent to participate in “mandatory contractual arbitration” of her claims. Appellants contend the trial court erred by denying their petition and refusing to compel respondent to submit her dispute to the Hotel’s “Review Committee” for a final and binding resolution of her claims. We hold that respondent did not agree to arbitrate her claims against the Hotel and therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying the petition to compel arbitration.

II. Statement of Facts

A. Respondent’s Employment by the Hotel

Respondent was hired by the Hotel on January 30, 1985, and was employed in its human resources department. In February 1987, she signed a document entitled “Receipt of Employee Handbook.” That document states, in part: “I have this day received a copy of the Renaissance Employee Handbook. I agree to fully and completely…

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.