CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>CITY OF LOS ANGELES v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/><b >CITY OF </b><b >LOS ANGELES</b><b > v.</b><b > </b><b >SUPERIOR</b><b > </b><b >COURT</b><b > </b><b >OF</b><b > </b><b >LOS ANGELES</b><b > </b><b >COUNTY</b><b ></b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 3/25/11 <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b ><i >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</i></b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br/> <br/>SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT <br/> <br/>DIVISION THREE <br/> <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=638 > <tr > <td width=319 valign=top > <br/>CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, <br/> <br/> Petitioner, <br/> <br/> v. <br/> <br/>THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, <br/> <br/> Respondents, <br/> <br/>ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION, <br/> <br/> Petitioner and Real Party in Interest. <br/> </td> <td width=319 valign=top > <br/> B228732 <br/> <br/> (Los Angeles County <br/> Super. Ct. No. BS126192) <br/> </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I….</b> <br/> <br/> <br/>3. <i >The MOU Is Ambiguous as to Whether Furloughs are Arbitrable</i> <br/> Turning to the language of the MOU itself, the issue of whether the decision to furlough employees is arbitrable appears to be one requiring the interpretation of sections 1.9 and 3.1 of the MOUs. As discussed above, section 3.1 provides a broad definition of â€