Plummer

Plummer v. Day | Eisenberg CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 22, 2013G046567California1,516 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikola, J.

FACTS

Plummer sued D.E., Bisom, and another defendant for conversion and other causes of action. Plummer alleged he was entitled to a portion of the settlement proceeds from a personal injury case on which he, D.E., and Bisom had provided legal services. D.E., Plummer, and Bisom stipulated to submit “the pending claims to a binding arbitration . . . .” As to costs, the arbitration stipulation contained two provisions: “Parties shall be entitled to costs with respect to the arbitration per code” and “[c]osts of the arbitration will be split equally amongst the three parties subject to reallocation and recoverable costs.” In his written arbitration award, the arbitrator concluded Plummer‟s tort claims against D.E. were “legally and factually untenable.” As to Bisom, the arbitrator concluded Plummer was entitled to the reasonable value of his services, and awarded 1 A judgment entered after the court rules on a party‟s petition to confirm or correct a private arbitration award is appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1294, subdivision (d). All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. The arbitration stipulation provided, “The parties to the…

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.