California Rules of Court|Standard 3. Application and effective date

                                                

<< Previous Rule
[ Back to Title Index ]
     |       Printer-friendly version of this page

2024 California Rules of Court

Standard 3. Application and effective date

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this standard and standard 8, these standards apply to all persons who are appointed to serve as neutral arbitrators on or after July 1, 2002, in any arbitration under an arbitration agreement, if:

(1)  The arbitration agreement is subject to the provisions of title 9 of part III of the Code of Civil Procedure (commencing with section 1280); or

(2)  The arbitration hearing is to be conducted in California.

(b) These standards do not apply to:

(1)  Party arbitrators, as defined in these standards; or

(2)  Any arbitrator serving in:

(A)  An international arbitration proceeding subject to the provisions of title 9.3 of part III of the Code of Civil Procedure;

(B)  A judicial arbitration proceeding subject to the provisions of chapter 2.5 of title 3 of part III of the Code of Civil Procedure;

(C)  An attorney-client fee arbitration proceeding subject to the provisions of article 13 of chapter 4 of division 3 of the Business and Professions Code;

(D)  An automobile warranty dispute resolution process certified under California Code of Regulations title 16, division 33.1 or an informal dispute settlement procedure under Code of Federal Regulations title 16, chapter 1, part 703;

(E)  An arbitration of a workers' compensation dispute under Labor Code sections 5270 through 5277;

(F)  An arbitration conducted by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board under Labor Code section 5308;

(G)  An arbitration of a complaint filed against a contractor with the Contractors State License Board under Business and Professions Code sections 7085 through 7085.7;

(H)  An arbitration conducted under or arising out of public or private sector labor-relations laws, regulations, charter provisions, ordinances, statutes, or agreements; or

(I)  An arbitration proceeding governed by rules adopted by a securities self-regulatory organization and approved by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission under federal law.

(Subd (b) amended effective July 1, 2014.)

(c) The following persons are not subject to the standards or to specific amendments to the standards in certain arbitrations:

(1)  Persons who are serving in arbitrations in which they were appointed to serve as arbitrators before July 1, 2002, are not subject to these standards in those arbitrations.

(2)  Persons who are serving in arbitrations in which they were appointed to serve as arbitrators before January 1, 2003, are not subject to standard 8 in those arbitrations.

(3)  Persons who are serving in arbitrations in which they were appointed to serve as arbitrators before July 1, 2014, are not subject to the amendments to standards 2, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 17 that took effect July 1, 2014 in those arbitrations.

(Subd (c) amended effective July 1, 2014.)

Standard 3 amended effective July 1, 2014.

View Latest Rulings

In the pending motion, Miller indicates that, pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, they agreed to have removed from the public record section 3 (pages 8-11) of the Fee Order. (Motion at 3:6-11.) Miller contends that he gave up his right to appeal the Fee Order with the express understanding that section 3 of the Fee Order would be removed from the public record. Id.) Miller now moves for an order vacating and/or sealing section 3 of the Fee Order. The motion is unopposed.

  • Name

    SCARECROW VISUAL EFFECTS INC VS ANDREW MILLER

  • Case No.

    BC543719

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2016

Lastly, section 3 of the proposed order incorrectly reflects a finding of personal service. Counsel to give notice.

  • Name

    DUTY V. CHU

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01039953-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2019

Singer fails to demonstrate that (1) Lumar’s payment of $120,000 in fees and costs was a condition precedent to his transfer of Parcel B to Atico under Section 3(d); and (2) based on the evidence presented on this motion, including the language of 3(d), his interpretation of Section 3(d) is reasonable. In contrast, Lumar’s interpretation of its obligation under Section 3(d) is reasonable based on the express language of Section 3(d).

  • Name

    LUMAR, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABLILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS RONALD SINGER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00078

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2021

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Section 3 is, by its terms, an agreement between Shelton and an entity named TriNet. Fenn does not explain who “TriNet” is or how it relates to Shelton’s employment in its motion. Fenn’s name appears only in a header to Section 3 where it is identified as the “client”. Section 3 is not signed by Fenn. Section 3 is signed only by Shelton. There is no signature line for TriNet or any other party.

  • Name

    FENN TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL INC. VS SHELTON

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01013880-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) appears to meet the definition in Article XIII, Section 3, which requires vessels of more than 50 tons’ burden. That is alleged. (SAC, paragraph 12) Article XIII, Section 3 also requires that the vessels be “engaged in the transportation of freight or passengers.” That is also alleged, as the courts have interpreted that phrase. The phrase has been interpreted to mean that a vessel must be carrying goods that someone is paying to be transported. In Dragich v.

  • Name

    MANSON CONSTRUCTION VS. CONTRA

  • Case No.

    MSC17-00713

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2018

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

View More Rulings

View Latest Dockets

Filed

Jun 17, 2019

Status

Active

Judge

Hon. Scott J. Nord Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Scott J. Nord

Court

Antelope Valley

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Trust (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Probate

Matter Type

Trusts

Filed

Feb 14, 2018

Status

Default Judgment

Judge

Hon. McGuire, Rosemary Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for McGuire, Rosemary

Court

Fresno County

County

Fresno County, CA

Practice Area

Family

Matter Type

Divorce,Separation

Filed

Jan 04, 2009

Status

Other

Court

Los Angeles County

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

Joint Petition for Summary Dissolution (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Commercial

Matter Type

Dissolution

Filed

May 08, 2018

Status

Other

Judge

Hon. David A. Rosen Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for David A. Rosen

Court

Los Angeles County

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Category

DV Prevention w/ Minor Children (General Jurisdiction)

Practice Area

Family

Matter Type

Domestic Violence

Filed

Jul 23, 2018

Status

Judgment (Other)

Judge

Hon. Zepeda, Francine Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Zepeda, Francine

Court

Fresno County

County

Fresno County, CA

Practice Area

Family

Matter Type

Divorce,Separation

View More Dockets
Previous Section

Doc thumbnail Standard 2. Definitions

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 1 page

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Fontana District 17780 Arrow Boulevard Fontana California 92335 www.sb-court.org …

Case Filed

Feb 14, 2023

Case Status

Judgment Entered

County

San Bernardino County, CA

Filed Date

Oct 04, 2023

Category

Small Claims $5,001 - $10,000

Judge Hon. Robert Driessen Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Robert Driessen
preview-icon 1 page

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO Fontana District 17780 Arrow Boulevard Fontana California 92335 www.sb-court.org 909-350-9322 …

Case Filed

Sep 13, 2019

Case Status

Under Court Supervision

County

San Bernardino County, CA

Filed Date

Oct 21, 2023

Category

Petition for Letters of Administration

Judge Hon. Damian Garcia Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Damian Garcia
preview-icon Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 2/25/2019 2:30 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk, By E. Alvarez, D eputy Clerk SEKI, NISHIMURA & WATASE, LLP ANDREW C. PONGRACZ (SBN 258554) 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel.: (213) 481-2869 Fax: (213) 481-2871 …

Case Filed

Jul 09, 2018

Case Status

Statistical Disposition 04/22/2019

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Feb 25, 2019

Category

Decedent's Estate (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Paul T. Suzuki Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Paul T. Suzuki
preview-icon Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 2/25/2019 2:30 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk, By E. Alvarez, Deputy Clerk 1 SEKI, NISHIMURA & WATASE, LLP ANDREW C. PONGRACZ (SBN 258554) 2 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90017 3 Tel.: (213) 481-2869 Fax: (213) 481-2871 …

Case Filed

Jul 09, 2018

Case Status

Statistical Disposition 04/22/2019

County

Los Angeles County, CA

Filed Date

Feb 25, 2019

Category

Decedent's Estate (General Jurisdiction)

Judge Hon. Paul T. Suzuki Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Paul T. Suzuki
preview-icon 1 page

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO Fontana District 17780 Arrow Boulevard Fontana California 92335 www.sb-court.org 909-350-9322 …

Case Filed

Jun 11, 2020

Case Status

Judgment Entered

County

San Bernardino County, CA

Filed Date

Apr 28, 2021

Category

Small Claims $5,001 - $10,000

Judge Hon. Winston Keh Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Winston Keh
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope