clear legal error in California

2017It explained that the arbitrator had made a clear error of law because under the tolling provision of section 1281.12, the plaintiff's filing of the civil *599 action tolled the applicable time limitations contained in the arbitration agreement, and thus plaintiff's claims were not time-barred. ( Pearson Dental , supra , 48 Cal.4th at p. 673-675 , 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 171 , 229 P.3d 83 .) Further, the error was subject to judicial review: "Here, as a result of the arbitrator's clear legal error, plaintiff's claim was incorrectly determined to be time-barred.

2017It explained that the arbitrator had made a clear error of law because under the tolling provision of section 1281.12, the plaintiff's filing of the civil *599 action tolled the applicable time limitations contained in the arbitration agreement, and thus plaintiff's claims were not time-barred. ( Pearson Dental , supra , 48 Cal.4th at p. 673-675 , 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 171 , 229 P.3d 83 .) Further, the error was subject to judicial review: "Here, as a result of the arbitrator's clear legal error, plaintiff's claim was incorrectly determined to be time-barred.

2016We notified the parties that, “[i]n view of the clear legal error apparent in [the trial court’s] orders,” we intended “to issue a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance.” (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-183 .) We also stated that the trial court could “avoid the issuance of a peremptory writ by vacating its orders of April 2, 2013 and September 29, 2015, and issuing a new order denying the petition to vacate the Clause Construction Award.” On January 19, 2016 the trial court declined to vacate its April 2, 2013 and September 29, 2015 orders.

2014(See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171 , 177- 183 [(Palma)]; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223 .)[ 5] 4 There is no reporter’s transcript of the January 16, 2014 hearing. 5 As our Supreme Court explained in Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35 (Ng), “[T]he accelerated Palma procedure is the exception; it . . . should be adopted only when petitioner’s entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue--for example, when such entitlement is conceded or when there has b

2014(See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171 , 177- 183 [(Palma)]; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223 .)[ 5] 4 There is no reporter’s transcript of the January 16, 2014 hearing. 5 As our Supreme Court explained in Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35 (Ng), “[T]he accelerated Palma procedure is the exception; it . . . should be adopted only when petitioner’s entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue--for example, when such entitlement is conceded or when there has b

2014(See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171 , 177- 183 [(Palma)]; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223 .)[ 5] 4 There is no reporter’s transcript of the January 16, 2014 hearing. 5 As our Supreme Court explained in Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35 (Ng), “[T]he accelerated Palma procedure is the exception; it . . . should be adopted only when petitioner’s entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue--for example, when such entitlement is conceded or when there has b

2013In this regard, courts consider the judicial nature of the prior forum, i.e., its legal formality, the scope of its jurisdiction, and its procedural safeguards, particularly including the opportunity for judicial review of adverse rulings.” (Vandenberg, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 829 , italics added.) *871 Unlike the defendant, the plaintiff in a small claims action cannot appeal the ruling, even where the small claims court made a clear legal error.