prudential rule in California

2017(County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 749, fn. 5 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 ]; see also Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 386-387.) This is currently a PAGA case, and Prudential is relying on a *446 2006 predispute arbitration agreement by Betancourt to compel arbitration in this 2015 case brought on behalf of the state.

2017(County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 749, fn. 5 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 ]; see also Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 386-387.) This is currently a PAGA case, and Prudential is relying on a *446 2006 predispute arbitration agreement by Betancourt to compel arbitration in this 2015 case brought on behalf of the state.

2017Because the trial court’s denial of Prudential’s motion was based upon a decision of law, we apply the de novo standard of review. 4 (Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 619, 630 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ].) “[T]o bring a motion to compel arbitration, a party must plead and prove: ‘(1) the parties’ written agreement to arbitrate a controversy . . . ; (2) a request or demand by one party to the other party or parties for arbitration of *445 such controversy pursuant to and under the terms of their written arbitration agreement; and (3) the refusal of the other party or pa

2017Because the trial court’s denial of Prudential’s motion was based upon a decision of law, we apply the de novo standard of review. 4 (Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 619, 630 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ].) “[T]o bring a motion to compel arbitration, a party must plead and prove: ‘(1) the parties’ written agreement to arbitrate a controversy . . . ; (2) a request or demand by one party to the other party or parties for arbitration of *445 such controversy pursuant to and under the terms of their written arbitration agreement; and (3) the refusal of the other party or pa

2017Because the trial court’s denial of Prudential’s motion was based upon a decision of law, we apply the de novo standard of review. 4 (Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 619, 630 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ].) “[T]o bring a motion to compel arbitration, a party must plead and prove: ‘(1) the parties’ written agreement to arbitrate a controversy . . . ; (2) a request or demand by one party to the other party or parties for arbitration of *445 such controversy pursuant to and under the terms of their written arbitration agreement; and (3) the refusal of the other party or pa

2017Because the trial court’s denial of Prudential’s motion was based upon a decision of law, we apply the de novo standard of review. 4 (Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 619, 630 [ 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 29 ].) “[T]o bring a motion to compel arbitration, a party must plead and prove: ‘(1) the parties’ written agreement to arbitrate a controversy . . . ; (2) a request or demand by one party to the other party or parties for arbitration of *445 such controversy pursuant to and under the terms of their written arbitration agreement; and (3) the refusal of the other party or pa

2017At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court explained that a PAGA claim is not subject to an agreement to arbitrate. ( Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th 348 .) The trial court further explained that, to the extent Betancourt’s requested remedies are inconsistent with a PAGA case, the proper procedure would be for Prudential to file a motion to strike.

2017(County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 749, fn. 5 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 362 ]; see also Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 386-387.) This is currently a PAGA case, and Prudential is relying on a *446 2006 predispute arbitration agreement by Betancourt to compel arbitration in this 2015 case brought on behalf of the state.

2016(People v. Jones (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1264 (Jones); Davis v. U.S. (2011) 564 U.S. 229 , -- [ 180 L.Ed.2d 285 , 293] (Davis).) Exclusion is not a personal constitutional right, nor is it designed to redress the injury an unconstitutional search causes.

2012Sound jurisprudence dictates that such issues be decided only in the context of cases and controversies actually raising the issue.‖ (People v. Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 393 (conc. (footnote continued on next page) 3 case illustrates the prudential rule‘s wisdom, as defendant‘s failure to raise the parole search issue in the trial court, in response to the People‘s effort to justify the search (see Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th, 119, 136 ), prevented the development of a factual record that might have obviated any perceived need to revisit the permissible scope of warrantless searches.

2007Proc., §§ 2002, 2005.) The conclusion we reach also permits us to avoid the difficult question whether the local rule and order violate petitioner’s right to due process of law, “[m]indful [as we are] of the prudential rule of judicial restraint that counsels against rendering a decision on constitutional grounds if a statutory basis for resolution exists.” (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1190 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778 , 980 P.2d 337 ].) This rule directs that “if reasonably possible, statutory provisions should be interpreted in a manner that avoids seriou

2007Proc., §§ 2002, 2005.) The conclusion we reach also permits us to avoid the difficult question whether the local rule and order violate petitioner's right to due process of law, "[m]indful [as we are] of the prudential rule of judicial restraint that counsels against rendering a decision on constitutional grounds if a statutory basis for resolution exists." ( NBC Subsidiary (KNBCTV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1190 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 778 , 980 P.2d 337 .) This rule directs that "if reasonably possible, statutory provisions should be interpreted in a manner that avoids serious

2002Emp. v. Fullerton (Okla.Civ.App. 1993) 852 P.2d 813, 814 [rights of full-time student dependent under group health plan vested when accident occurred during policy period].) Therefore, to determine whether Prudential’s motion for summary judgment should be granted, we must consider the threshold issue of whether the undisputed facts show that Michelle was not insured under the Plan as a qualified dependent on the date of her accident.

1999Mindful of the prudential rule of judicial restraint that counsels against rendering a decision on constitutional grounds if a statutory basis for resolution exists (see, e.g., Ashwander v. Valley Authority (1936) 297 U.S. 288, 347 [ 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 ] (cone. opn. of Brandéis, J.)), we amended our specification of issues to include a preliminary additional issue: Does the trial court’s exclusion order in this case violate section 124?

1999Mindful of the prudential rule of judicial restraint that counsels against rendering a decision on constitutional grounds if a statutory basis for resolution exists (see, e.g., Ashwander v. Valley Authority (1936) 297 U.S. 288, 347 [ 56 S.Ct. 466, 483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 ] (cone. opn. of Brandéis, J.)), we amended our specification of issues to include a preliminary additional issue: Does the trial court’s exclusion order in this case violate section 124?