Busick

Maplebear, Inc. v. Busick

Bad Law
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98·26 Cal. App. 5th 394
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 21, 2018A151677California5,387 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Miller, J.

*99 The California Arbitration Act (CAA, Code. Civ. Proc., § 1280 et seq. 1 ) allows a party to an arbitration to petition the superior court to confirm, correct or vacate an arbitrator's "award," an award that must be set out in writing and "include a determination of all the questions submitted to the arbitrators the decision of which is necessary in order to determine the controversy." (§ 1283.4.) In this case, the arbitrator issued a "partial final award" determining only that the parties' arbitration agreement permits the claimant to move for class certification. The primary issue before us is whether this constituted an "award" that was immediately reviewable by the superior court. When appellant filed a petition in superior court to vacate the "partial final award," the trial court concluded that it had no jurisdiction under the CAA to review it at this preliminary stage. Appellant urges us to remand the case to the trial court to determine the merits of the petition to vacate. We affirm the trial court's order of dismissal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant Maplebear, Inc. (Instacart) is a same-day grocery delivery service. 2 Its customers order groceries…

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.