Mave Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut

Full title: MAVE ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE TRAVELERS…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Oct 23, 2013

No. B241807 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2013)

Opinion

Page 780c

220 Cal.App.4th 780c __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ MAVE ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, Defendant and Appellant. B241807 California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division October 23, 2013

THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the majority opinion filed herein and certified for publication in the Official Reports on September 26, 2013, 219 Cal.App.4th 1408;___Cal.Rptr.3d___, be modified as follows:

To the paragraph commencing at the bottom of page 31 with “Shahinian also noted that the Court of Appeal” and continuing on page 32, insert on page 32 the following quotation and citation between the citation to footnote 16 of Shahinian and the sentence that begins “Private arbitration... really is private" [219 Cal.App.4th 1439, advance report, 1st full par., line 12]:

“If the limited state involvement of converting [an arbitration] award into a judgment were to engender the same due process incidents required with respect to [a judgment] originally assessed and imposed by a court, the contrasting simplicity, informality, and private nature of arbitration would be seriously undermined.” (Rifkind & Sterling, Inc. v. Rifkind, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1292.)

There is no change in the judgment.