live hearing in California

2026Instead, notwithstanding the language in section 1282.2, subdivision (d), parties to an arbitration proceeding “may be heard on the papers rather than at a live hearing.” (Royal Alliance, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 1108 , citing Schlessinger v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1105 .) Although arbitration procedures that interfere with a party’s right to a fair hearing are reviewable on appeal, there is no requirement that a live, in-person evidentiary hearing be held.

2025Presenting Evidence Section 1282.2, subdivision (d) provides “parties” in arbitration “are entitled to be heard, to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing, but rules of evidence and rules of judicial procedure need not be observed.” Similarly, a trial “court shall vacate the” arbitration result if the arbitrator refused “to hear evidence material to the controversy[.]” (§ 1286.2, subd. (a) & (a)(5).) It “does not mean,” however, “that the evidence must be orally presented or that live testimony is required.” (Schlessinger v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1995) 40

2024(Boermeester, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 92 [“We must decide whether fair procedure requires private universities to provide accused students the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine the accuser and other witnesses at a live hearing with the accused student in attendance . . . . we hold that it does not”]; Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1084 (Regents) [“There is no requirement under California law that, in an administrative hearing, an accused is entitled to cross-examine witnesses”].) We conclude that the sanctions Stanford imposed on John, consisti

2023Were we to assume, however, that a private university must provide an accused student the opportunity to indirectly cross-examine the accuser or third party witnesses outside of the context of a live hearing when the credibility of the accuser or third party witnesses is central to the adjudication, as some lower courts have held (see Claremont McKenna, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 1070 ; University II, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1237 ; Westmont, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 638–639; see also Regents I, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1084 ), we would find USC’s failure to provide Boermeester the o

2021In Doe v. Allee (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1069 (Allee), the court held in university disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of sexual misconduct, when the sanction is severe and credibility is central to the adjudication, the university must provide cross-examination at a live hearing before a neutral adjudicator who was not also the investigator as a matter of fair process.

2021In Doe v. Allee (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1069 (Allee), the court held in university disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of sexual misconduct, when the sanction is severe and credibility is central to the adjudication, the university must provide cross-examination at a live hearing before a neutral adjudicator who was not also the investigator as a matter of fair process.

2023(Westmont, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 638 ; accord, Doe v. Claremont McKenna College (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1070 (Claremont McKenna); Doe v. University of Southern California (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1212, 1237 (University II); see also Regents I, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at 28 BOERMEESTER v. CARRY Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. p. 1084.) In University II, for example, the court directed the private university to give the accused student “an opportunity to submit a list of questions” for the university’s adjudicators to ask the accuser if it proceeded with a new disciplinary proceeding upon

2023Were we to assume, however, that a private university must provide an accused student the opportunity to indirectly cross-examine the accuser or third party witnesses outside of the context of a live hearing when the credibility of the accuser or third party witnesses is central to the adjudication, as some lower courts have held (see Claremont McKenna, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 1070 ; University II, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1237 ; Westmont, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 638–639; see also Regents I, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1084 ), we would find USC’s failure to provide Boermeester the o

2026Further, the court held that the arbitrator’s obligation to “hear evidence” pursuant to section 1286.2, subdivision (e), “does not mean that the evidence must be orally presented or that live testimony is required.” Instead, it explained, “[t]he parties may be heard on the papers rather than at a live hearing,” citing Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. v. Liebhaber (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1108 (Royal Alliance).

2026Instead, notwithstanding the language in section 1282.2, subdivision (d), parties to an arbitration proceeding “may be heard on the papers rather than at a live hearing.” (Royal Alliance, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 1108 , citing Schlessinger v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1105 .) Although arbitration procedures that interfere with a party’s right to a fair hearing are reviewable on appeal, there is no requirement that a live, in-person evidentiary hearing be held.

2023Were we to assume, however, that a private university must provide an accused student the opportunity to indirectly cross-examine the accuser or third party witnesses outside of the context of a live hearing when the credibility of the accuser or third party witnesses is central to the adjudication, as some lower courts have held (see Claremont McKenna, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 1070 ; University II, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1237 ; Westmont, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 638–639; see also Regents I, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1084 ), we would find USC’s failure to provide Boermeester the o

2019(CMC, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1072–1073.) The court held “that where . . . [an accused student] was facing potentially severe consequences and the [review] Committee’s decision against him turned on believing [his accuser], the Committee’s procedures should have included an opportunity for the Committee to assess [the accuser’s] credibility by her appearing at the hearing in person or by videoconference or similar technology, and by the Committee’s asking her appropriate questions proposed by [the accused] or the Committee itself.” (Id. at p. 1057.) In Cincinnati, university procedures pe

2023Reg., supra, at p. 41505) requires universities “to provide for a live hearing with advisor-conducted cross- examination in all cases” (id. at p. 41507).

2017(Silver v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 338, 352 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 287 ].) Even if Reddy had complied with the Rules of Court in requesting a live hearing, we would have no hesitation in affirming the trial court’s decision not to take oral testimony.

2017(Silver v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 338, 352 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 287 ].) Even if Reddy had complied with the Rules of Court in requesting a live hearing, we would have no hesitation in affirming the trial court’s decision not to take oral testimony.

2016On request of any party to the arbitration, the testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath.” Section 1282.2, subdivision (d) is incorporated into section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5) by the phrase “other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title.” Both statutes codify within the CAA the fundamental principle that “[ajrbitration should give both parties an opportunity to be heard.” (Cheng-Canindin v. Renaissance Hotel Associates (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 676, 689 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 867 ].) The parties may be heard on the papers rather than at a live hearing (Schlessinger

2016On request of any party to the arbitration, the testimony of witnesses shall be given under oath.” Section 1282.2, subdivision (d) is incorporated into section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5) by the phrase “other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title.” Both statutes codify within the CAA the fundamental principle that “[ajrbitration should give both parties an opportunity to be heard.” (Cheng-Canindin v. Renaissance Hotel Associates (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 676, 689 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 867 ].) The parties may be heard on the papers rather than at a live hearing (Schlessinger

2013And, as pointed out by the People, “that the trial court’s findings were based on declarations and other written evidence does not lessen the deference due those findings.” (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711, fn. 3 .) Quite simply, a live hearing was not required.

1991(See Warner v. Superior Court (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 821, 824 [ 273 P.2d 89 ].) The question presented is whether this rule was abrogated with the enactment, in 1970, of Code of Civil Procedure section 1211.5, which provides in relevant part: “(a) If no objection is made to the sufficiency of such affidavit or statement during the hearing on the charges contained therein, jurisdiction of the subject matter shall not depend on the averments of such affidavit or statement, but may be established by the facts found by the trial court to have been proved at such hearing, and the court shall cause t

1991(See Warner v. Superior Court (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 821, 824 [ 273 P.2d 89 ].) The question presented is whether this rule was abrogated with the enactment, in 1970, of Code of Civil Procedure section 1211.5, which provides in relevant part: “(a) If no objection is made to the sufficiency of such affidavit or statement during the hearing on the charges contained therein, jurisdiction of the subject matter shall not depend on the averments of such affidavit or statement, but may be established by the facts found by the trial court to have been proved at such hearing, and the court shall cause t