Supreme Court denies review in Burlage v. Superior Court

The Earl Warren Building and Courthouse at Civ...
Image via Wikipedia

The Supreme Court denied review today in Burlage v. Superior Court, leaving intact the decision that, by speculation of some (including yours truly), will increase the number of legal challenges to arbitration decisions. I won’t go so far as to say that it will “open the floodgates,” but it certainly opens an avenue to judicial review that many would not have tried before the decision was published.

Expect to see many challenges that assert, though not in so many words, that the legal error that occurred in their case is grounds for vacating an award if the error led the arbitrator to exclude evidence. The challenge for these litigants will be to squeeze the history of their arbitration proceedings into the confines of Burlage, and its interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5). There will be plenty of fights over what those confines are.

The section headed “Uncertainty and a Little History” at the outset of Justice Gilbert’s opinion in Burlage certainly seemed to tee the case up for Supreme Court review:

We look to legal precedent in deciding cases. We believe the law is predictable and provides litigants and counsel a reasonable degree of certainty. True, but not always.

In 1991, we wrote what we thought was a routine arbitration opinion. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (Apr. 2, 1991, B048936) [nonpub. opn.].) We relied on decades of precedent in our unpublished decision to affirm the arbitration award because no error appeared on the face of the award. In dicta, we noted that had the error appeared on the face of the award and created substantial prejudice, we would have reversed.

To our surprise, our Supreme Court granted review. Our holding was affirmed, but our dicta “reversed.” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1.) Oh well, nobody’s perfect. Moncharsh held that judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision regarding questions of fact or law is extremely limited. Thus, even though an error of law appears on the face of an arbitration award and causes substantial injustice, it is not subject to judicial review in the absence of a limiting clause or as provided by statute. (Id. at p. 25.)

For the next decade, courts have wrestled with the question of when and under what circumstances judicial review of an arbitration award is proper.

Though we have no Supreme Court review this time, we’re about to witness another round of wrestling. As more and more courts consider the question, significant judicial discord may develop, and Justices Baxter and Corrigan — the two justices who were in favor of review — might sway their colleagues to grant review in a similar case.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Reminder: Supreme Court’s Los Angeles office closes for good today

Today is the last day of operation for The California Supreme Court’s Los Angeles clerk’s office, which is closing for budgetary reasons. The press release announcing the closure states that the Supreme Court will continue to schedule oral arguments in Los Angeles, but litigants must now file all documents at the court’s San Francisco clerk’s office.

Explicit Judicial Requests for Supreme Court Review

Legal Pad highlights a couple of very recent cases, in which the published opinions explicitly urge the Supreme Court to reexamine an issue, in a post titled How Do You Make the Supremes Notice You? Do such explicit requests help the parties obtain review of the Court of Appeal judgment? The post turns to Santa Clara University School of Law Professor Gerald F. Uelmen for comment on that issue.

Supreme Court Gets Rid of Conflicts by Dismissing Case

Laura Ernde, a staff writer at the Daily Journal, alerted me to her piece in yesterday’s edition of that paper about last week’s dismissal of the Lockheed Litigation Cases, case no. S132167. According to her article, this was one of the oldest matters on the court’s docket and the dismissal comes more than two years after briefing was complete.

The dismissal apparently arises out of conflicts of interest. According to the article, four of the seven justices had recused themselves from these five consolidated toxic tort cases because they owned stock in at least one of the oil company defendants.

The Supreme Court’s actual order is not posted as a final disposition on the court’s website, nor does it appear to be available on Westlaw. But here’s how the docket web page for the case describes it, which may or may not be verbatim from the order:

Review in the above-captioned matter is dismissed in light of circumstances, arising since review was granted, that require a majority of the permanent members of the court to recuse themselves. (See Cal. Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3.E(4)(c), (5)(d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(b).) Kennard, Baxter, Chin, and Corrigan, JJ., were recused and did not participate. Hon. William R. McGuiness, Administrative Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Votes: George, C.J., Werdegar, Moreno, and McGuiness, JJ.

The article is devoted in large part to the unusual reasons for the dismissal. It quotes Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelman’s astonishment at the reasons for the dismissal, as well as Chief Justice George’s defense of it on the ground that a decision on the merits by appointed justices would not carry the same weight as a decision of the regular court members. The latter strikes me as an odd position to take in light of the fact that, as the article points out, the court has appointed 7-member panels in the past. The article claims that has happened in cases in which the entire court was “conflicted,” but writes that Chief Justice George distinguishes those prior occasions because “the new panels [on those prior occasions] were created out of necessity and not conflicts of interest.” (That is Ms. Ernde’s characterization of Chief Justice George’s position, not a quote attributed to him.)

The article quotes several of the attorneys involved in the case, none of whom saw the dismissal coming. My favorite quote is from Horvitz & Levy attorney David M. Axelrad, representing Exxon, who is quoted as saying, “Some people say that appellate litigation is not exciting. Well, that’s not actually true.”

The article also discusses the nature of the issue on the merits. The online case summary page for the case describes the issue this way:

Does Evidence Code section 801, subdivision (b), permit a trial court to review the evidence an expert relied upon in reaching his or her conclusions in order to determine whether that evidence provides a reasonable basis for the expert’s opinion?

A pretty good summary of the implications of the question appears here, at the website of environmental law firm Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp LLP.

Ms. Ernde’s article is behind the subscription wall at the Daily Journal, so if you are not a subscriber, you’ll need to get your hands on a physical copy of the November 5 edition. Thanks to Laura Ernde for alerting me to this.

UPDATE (11/8/07): Cal Bz Lit has a post on the merits of the evidentiary issue in the case. The post includes a link to his original post on the case (which includes a nice history on the development of expert witness “gatekeeping” authority of California judges).

UPDATE ( 12/14/07): The Supreme Court — part of it, anyway — has denied a request to republish the Court of Appeal opinion.