Bucur v. Superior Court
Filed 6/21/13 Bucur v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY,
Respondent;
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
E058450
(Super.Ct.No. RIC1300203)
OPINION
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate.
Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge.
Denied in part and granted in part, with directions.
Law
Offices of George A. Saba and George A. Saba for Petitioners.
No
appearance for Respondent.
Littler
Mendelson and Margaret H. Gillespie for Real Parties in Interest.
In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by
real parties in interest. We have
determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled
principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance
is therefore appropriate. (
(1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
DISCUSSION
We agree with real
parties in interest that the arbitration provisions of the contract are valid
and enforceable against petitioners.
However, we do not agree that every
claim by petitioners against real parties falls within the strictly limited
language of the arbitration provision. It is well established, of course, that the
scope of an arbitration is limited by the parties’ agreement. (Vandenberg
v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 830.) Here, the arbitration covers only claims
directly related to the termination of the hauling agreement. Although the complaint could not be described
as a model of pleading, it clearly includes claims that are at best tangential
to the termination. For example,
petitioners complain that real parties wrongfully allowed Chuck Wasarhelyi
(Chuck) access to and the use of a Social Security number belonging to one or
more petitioners, and also complain about real parties’ alleged interference
with petitioners’ attempt to transfer the hauling contracts
recognize that the claims against Chuck do not appear to be arbitrable.)
Due to the
somewhat confused nature of the pleadings, we have determined that the best
resolution of the matter is to grant the petition in part and remand the matter
to the trial court with directions to examine the complaint in detail and to
craft an order compelling arbitration of only those claims against real parties
which arise directly from the termination of petitioners’ hauling contracts by
real parties.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the
petition is denied insofar as the trial court correctly found that the
arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable. The petition is granted as specified above,
and respondent court is directed to schedule further proceedings for the determinations
required.
Petitioners are
directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies
served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with
proof of service on all parties. In the
bear their own costs. The previously
ordered stay is lifted.
The request for
judicial notice filed on May 21, 2013,
is granted, and the court takes judicial notice of the documents attached to
the request as exhibit A.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL
REPORTS
MCKINSTER
Acting
P. J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
MILLER
J.
