Syverson

Syverson v. Reeves CA2/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 25, 2022B312663California2,203 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chaney, J.

BACKGROUND

In July 2018, Raines Feldman LLP submitted a demand for arbitration to JAMS along with a statement of claims against Syverson, a former Raines Feldman partner. In the statement of claims, Raines Feldman alleged that Syverson had breached a settlement agreement that contained an arbitration clause. JAMS commenced the arbitration based on Raines Feldman’s demand and statement of claims. Syverson declined to voluntarily arbitrate the matter, and Raines Feldman successfully moved the trial court for an order compelling arbitration.

Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure unless otherwise specified.

2 During the course of the arbitration, Syverson sought to disqualify the first, second, and third arbitrators JAMS appointed. According to the allegations in Syverson’s second amended complaint2 against JAMS and Reeves, after Syverson objected to the first three arbitrators, JAMS sought to appoint Reeves to arbitrate Raines Feldman’s dispute with Syverson. Syverson alleges that he objected to the appointment and that JAMS overruled the objections and appointed Reeves as arbitrator in September 2018. In her initial disclosures to the parties, dated…

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.