Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2021–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Law Finance Group, LLC v. Keygreen2 sentences2025Given Law Finance’s construction of section 1288.2’s analogous deadline, we infer that the section 1288 deadline is likewise “not jurisdictional in the relevant sense.” (Law Finance, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 952, 949.) But on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s ruling if it is correct for any reason, even 5 1. 2024That exception gives the parties and the court wide latitude to set a briefing schedule in any arbitration-related proceeding—an exception that would permit modifying the response deadline without necessarily meeting the requirements for equitable tolling or estoppel.” (Law Finance, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 955 [reversing holding that CAA deadlines limited court’s fundamental jurisdiction and remanding for consideration of equitable tolling and estoppel arguments for extending the deadlines under sections 1288 and 1288.2].) We review a trial court’s determination whether to extend a statutory d | 2 | 3 |
Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.green2 sentences2025Moreover, section 1281.98 is like other arbitration-specific procedural rules, including the deadlines in section 1288 for filing a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award and the provision in section 1281.2, subdivision (c), for a court to stay an arbitration pending resolution of related litigation between a party to the arbitration agreement and third parties not bound by the agreement, where “there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 479 [rejecting preemption challenge to § 1281.2, subd. (c), explaining that whe 2025Moreover, section 1281.98 is like other arbitration-specific procedural rules, including the deadlines in section 1288 for filing a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award and the provision in section 1281.2, subdivision (c), for a court to stay an arbitration pending resolution of related litigation between a party to the arbitration agreement and third parties not bound by the agreement, where “there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 479 [rejecting preemption challenge to § 1281.2, subd. (c), explaining that whe | 2 | 2 |
Keeton v. Teslared2 sentences2025Moreover, section 1281.98 is like other arbitration-specific procedural rules, including the deadlines in section 1288 for filing a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award and the provision in section 1281.2, subdivision (c), for a court to stay an arbitration pending resolution of related litigation between a party to the arbitration agreement and third parties not bound by the agreement, where “there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 479 [rejecting preemption challenge to § 1281.2, subd. (c), explaining that whe 2025Moreover, section 1281.98 is like other arbitration-specific procedural rules, including the deadlines in section 1288 for filing a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award and the provision in section 1281.2, subdivision (c), for a court to stay an arbitration pending resolution of related litigation between a party to the arbitration agreement and third parties not bound by the agreement, where “there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 479 [rejecting preemption challenge to § 1281.2, subd. (c), explaining that whe | 2 | 2 |
Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Servicesgreen2 sentences2025Moreover, section 1281.98 is like other arbitration-specific procedural rules, including the deadlines in section 1288 for filing a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award and the provision in section 1281.2, subdivision (c), for a court to stay an arbitration pending resolution of related litigation between a party to the arbitration agreement and third parties not bound by the agreement, where “there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 479 [rejecting preemption challenge to § 1281.2, subd. (c), explaining that whe 2025Moreover, section 1281.98 is like other arbitration-specific procedural rules, including the deadlines in section 1288 for filing a petition to confirm or vacate an arbitration award and the provision in section 1281.2, subdivision (c), for a court to stay an arbitration pending resolution of related litigation between a party to the arbitration agreement and third parties not bound by the agreement, where “there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact.” (Volt, supra, 489 U.S. at p. 479 [rejecting preemption challenge to § 1281.2, subd. (c), explaining that whe | 2 | 2 |
Robinson v. U-Haul Co. of Californiagreen1 sentence2024(See Robinson v. U-Haul Co. of California (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 304, 327 [“a trial court’s finding of ‘good cause’ is generally reviewed deferentially, solely for abuse of discretion”]; see Lucci v. United Credit & Collection Co. (1934) 220 Cal. 492, 495 [trial court’s decision pursuant to statute permitting “an extension . . . ‘in furtherance of justice’ and ‘upon good cause shown’” is reviewed for an “abuse of discretion”].) 24 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding there was no good cause to continue the hearing on the petition to confirm or to allow additional briefing. | 1 | 1 |
Lucci v. United Credit and Collection Co.green1 sentence2024(See Robinson v. U-Haul Co. of California (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 304, 327 [“a trial court’s finding of ‘good cause’ is generally reviewed deferentially, solely for abuse of discretion”]; see Lucci v. United Credit & Collection Co. (1934) 220 Cal. 492, 495 [trial court’s decision pursuant to statute permitting “an extension . . . ‘in furtherance of justice’ and ‘upon good cause shown’” is reviewed for an “abuse of discretion”].) 24 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding there was no good cause to continue the hearing on the petition to confirm or to allow additional briefing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Aratagreen1 sentence2023(San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. 3250 Corp. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1075, 1088 [deference to higher court’s interpretation of statutes with identical language]; People v. Arata (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 778, 786 [deference to higher court’s interpretation of statutes with “very similar” language].) The pertinent language in section 1288 is identical to section 1288.2—both require that the pleading “shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award . . . .” (§§ 1288, 1288.2; see also Law Finance, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 946 [noting the iden | 1 | 1 |
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. 3250 CORP.green1 sentence2023(San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. 3250 Corp. (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1075, 1088 [deference to higher court’s interpretation of statutes with identical language]; People v. Arata (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 778, 786 [deference to higher court’s interpretation of statutes with “very similar” language].) The pertinent language in section 1288 is identical to section 1288.2—both require that the pleading “shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award . . . .” (§§ 1288, 1288.2; see also Law Finance, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 946 [noting the iden | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trabuco Highlands Community Ass'n v. Head
green
2 sentences2021Key also cites Trabuco Highlands Community Assn. v. Head (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1183 , which suggested in a footnote that the “failure to raise the limitations period under sections 1288 and 1288.2 in the trial court forfeits the issue on appeal.” The court did not actually decide that issue, as it was raised for the first time at oral argument. 2021Key also cites Trabuco Highlands Community Assn. v. Head (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1183 , which suggested in a footnote that the “failure to raise the limitations period under sections 1288 and 1288.2 in the trial court forfeits the issue on appeal.” The court did not actually decide that issue, as it was raised for the first time at oral argument. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.