Grinham

Grinham v. Fielder

Good Law
121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 468·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4340·2002 Daily Journal DAR 7361·99 Cal. App. 4th 1049·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5896
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 2002No. B151600California1,587 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Parties to a contract which calls for mandatory arbitration, arbitrate an action for breach of contract. One of the parties moves to join third parties to the arbitration. The third parties participate in the arbitration to contest that they are bound by the contract. They prevail. Here we hold that in a later action, the third parties may assert the doctrine of collateral estoppel against a party to the contract and the arbitration. We affirm the summary judgment in favor of Philip and Judy Fielder.

Facts

On September 7, 1999, Triple A Machine Shop (Triple A) obtained a judgment in Contra Costa County for $14,822, plus costs and interest, against Ronald J. Grinham. The judgment was unsatisfied and on August 4, 2000, Triple A brought an action in Ventura County against appellant Grinham and others to set aside allegedly fraudulent property transfers by Grinham.

Grinham cross-complained against respondents Philip and Judy Fielder, alleging causes of action for declaratory relief and contribution. The Fielders answered the cross-complaint and pleaded the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel. They also sought summary judgment based upon those…

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.