party a fair hearing in California

2025“Fraud” in this section means “extrinsic fraud which denies a party a fair hearing.” (Comerica Bank v. Howsam (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 790, 825 .) “The essence of extrinsic fraud is one party’s preventing the other from having [their] day in court.” (City and County of San Francisco v. Cartagena (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1067 .) Fraud in section 1286.2 does not refer to intrinsic fraud, which refers to wrongdoing that the party alleging fraud could have, but failed, to discover.

2024Only extrinsic fraud which denies a party a fair hearing may serve as a basis for vacating an award.” (Comerica, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 825 [collecting cases].) “Extrinsic fraud occurs ‘ “when a party is deprived of his opportunity to present his claim or defense to the court, where he was kept in ignorance or in some other manner fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding.” ’ ” (Kuehn v. Kuehn (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 824, 833 .) Section 1286.2(a)(1) also applies to awards procured by undue means, a term that is not defined in the statute but has been elucidated in c

2024Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 827 , 833–834 [citation].)” (Starr v. Mayhew (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 842 , 856.) In both contexts, “ ‘ “[a] fundamentally fair hearing requires . . . notice, opportunity to be heard and to present relevant and material evidence and argument before the decision makers . . . . [Citations.] “The arbitrator . . . must give each of the parties to the dispute an adequate opportunity to present its evidence and arguments.” ’ ” (Baker Marquart, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 740 .) Here, this standard for vacating an arbitration award is not met.

2023When an error is structural, “reversal is required without regard to the strength of the evidence or other circumstances.” (Conservatorship of Maria B. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 514, 534 .) “Structural errors affect ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’ [Citation.] Such errors are not subject to the conventional harmless error analysis because they affect the entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end. [Citations.] ‘In the civil context, structural error typically occurs when the trial court violates a party’s right to due

2023When an error is structural, “reversal is required without regard to the strength of the evidence or other circumstances.” (Conservatorship of Maria B. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 514, 534 .) “Structural errors affect ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’ [Citation.] Such errors are not subject to the conventional harmless error analysis because they affect the entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end. [Citations.] ‘In the civil context, structural error typically occurs when the trial court violates a party’s right to due

2022(Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 881 , 888- 889.) “Because the rules of evidence and judicial procedure do not apply to arbitration proceedings absent the parties’ agreement, ‘[a]rbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing ‘only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Further, the California Supreme Court has instructed that “section 1286.2 subdivision (a)(5), ‘if not properly limited, could swallow the rule that arbitration a

2022(Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 881 , 888- 889.) “Because the rules of evidence and judicial procedure do not apply to arbitration proceedings absent the parties’ agreement, ‘[a]rbitration procedures violate the common law right to a fair hearing ‘only in the clearest of cases, i.e., when the applicable procedures essentially preclude the possibility of a fair hearing.’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Further, the California Supreme Court has instructed that “section 1286.2 subdivision (a)(5), ‘if not properly limited, could swallow the rule that arbitration a

2019(Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 .) Structural errors require per se reversal “because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.” (People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) The effects of the error are “ ‘ “unmeasurable” ’ and ‘ “def[y] analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.” ’ [Citations.]” (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 261 , overruled in part on other grounds by Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) __ U.S. __ [ 139 S.Ct. 1407, 1417-1419 ].) “ ‘In the civil context, structural er

2019(Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 .) Structural errors require per se reversal “because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.” (People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) The effects of the error are “ ‘ “unmeasurable” ’ and ‘ “def[y] analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.” ’ [Citations.]” (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 261 , overruled in part on other grounds by Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) __ U.S. __ [ 139 S.Ct. 1407, 1417-1419 ].) “ ‘In the civil context, structural er

2019(Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 .) Structural errors require per se reversal “because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.” (People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) The effects of the error are “ ‘ “unmeasurable” ’ and ‘ “def[y] analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.” ’ [Citations.]” (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 261 , overruled in part on other grounds by Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) __ U.S. __ [ 139 S.Ct. 1407, 1417-1419 ].) “ ‘In the civil context, structural er

2019(Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 .) Structural errors require per se reversal “because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.” (People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) The effects of the error are “ ‘ “unmeasurable” ’ and ‘ “def[y] analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.” ’ [Citations.]” (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 261 , overruled in part on other grounds by Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) __ U.S. __ [ 139 S.Ct. 1407, 1417-1419 ].) “ ‘In the civil context, structural er

2017Automatic reversal is appropriate where there is a structural error “ „ “affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, . . .” ‟ [Citation.]” (Diamond v. Reshko (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 828, 849 .) “ „In the civil context, structural error typically occurs when the trial court violates a party‟s right to due process by denying the party a fair hearing,‟ ” for example, by “ „denying a party‟s request for a jury trial [citation] [or] violating a party‟s right to present testimony and evidence [citation].‟ [Citation.]” (Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1527 [finding the tr

2014Generally, a party must establish the existence of prejudice from the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless the record shows a “structural error requiring automatic reversal.” (Conservatorship of Maria B. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 514, 534 .) “In the civil context, structural error typically occurs when the trial court violates a party’s right to due process by denying the party a fair hearing. [Citation.] Structural errors requiring automatic reversal include denying a party’s request for a jury trial [citation] and violating a party’s right to present testimony and evidence [citations].” (Ibid

1977(Leedom v. Kyne (1958) 358 U.S. 184 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 210 , 79 S.Ct. 180 ].) The failure to accord a party a fair hearing not only has due-process/fair-trial overtones (see English v. City of Long Beach (1950) 35 Cal.2d 155 [ 217 P.2d 22 , 18 A.L.R.2d 547 ]), but the statute expressly mandates that “[u]pon receipt of a petition under this subdivision, the board, upon due notice, shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the election shall be certified.” (Italics added.) No equivalent provision is found in the National Labor Relations Act; consequently, federal precedents under that act are of lit

1977(Leedom v. Kyne (1958) 358 U.S. 184 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 210 , 79 S.Ct. 180 ].) The failure to accord a party a fair hearing not only has due-process/fair-trial overtones (see English v. City of Long Beach (1950) 35 Cal.2d 155 [ 217 P.2d 22 , 18 A.L.R.2d 547 ]), but the statute expressly mandates that “[u]pon receipt of a petition under this subdivision, the board, upon due notice, shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the election shall be certified.” (Italics added.) No equivalent provision is found in the National Labor Relations Act; consequently, federal precedents under that act are of lit

1977(Leedom v. Kyne (1958) 358 U.S. 184 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 210 , 79 S.Ct. 180 ].) The failure to accord a party a fair hearing not only has due-process/fair-trial overtones (see English v. City of Long Beach (1950) 35 Cal.2d 155 [ 217 P.2d 22 , 18 A.L.R.2d 547 ]), but the statute expressly mandates that “[u]pon receipt of a petition under this subdivision, the board, upon due notice, shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the election shall be certified.” (Italics added.) No equivalent provision is found in the National Labor Relations Act; consequently, federal precedents under that act are of lit

1977(Leedom v. Kyne (1958) 358 U.S. 184 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 210 , 79 S.Ct. 180 ].) The failure to accord a party a fair hearing not only has due-process/fair-trial overtones (see English v. City of Long Beach (1950) 35 Cal.2d 155 [ 217 P.2d 22 , 18 A.L.R.2d 547 ]), but the statute expressly mandates that “[u]pon receipt of a petition under this subdivision, the board, upon due notice, shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the election shall be certified.” (Italics added.) No equivalent provision is found in the National Labor Relations Act; consequently, federal precedents under that act are of lit