Petition of Corbett
| Decision Date | 03 July 1953 |
| Citation | 119 Cal.App.2d 21,258 P.2d 1077 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Petition of CORBETT et al. CORBETT et al. v. PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO. et al. Civ. 19456. |
Swaffield, Madden & McCarry, Long Beach, for appellants.
Wirin, Rissman & Okrand, A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, for respondents.
Livingston, Leeker & Feldman, Lawrence Livingston, and Jesse Feldman, San Francisco, and Isabella Grant, Encino, as Amici Curiae on behalf of appellants.
In a proceeding instituted on behalf of Oil Workers International Union Local 128 against Petroleum Maintenance Company for an order directing arbitration pursuant to sections 1280 et seq., Code of Civil Procedure, the court directed the company to proceed under the arbitration provisions of its collective bargaining agreement with the union. The company gave notice of appeal, briefs have been filed and the matter stands submitted. The sole ground of the appeal is that the arbitration provisions of the agreement relate solely to the question of performance of the agreement, the alleged violation consisted of the discharge of an employee, the agreement is silent as to any restriction upon the employer's right to discharge and, therefore, the matter of the discharge of the employee is not within the scope of the agreed arbitration procedure.
Although no question has been raised as to the appealability of the order directing arbitration we are of the opinion that we have no jurisdiction of the purported appeal.
Section 1293 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows an appeal from 'an order confirming, modifying, correcting or vacating an award, or from a judgment entered upon an award, as from an order or judgment in an action.' In Jardine-Matheson & Co., Ltd., v. Pacific Orient Co., 100 Cal.App. 572, 280 P. 697, an appeal from an order directing arbitration was dismissed for the reason that section 1293 is controlling, and that an order directing arbitration is not among the orders enumerated in the section from which an appeal is allowed. The reasoning of the opinion of the court leaves nothing to be said on the subject. It was held in Sjoberg v. Hastorf, 33 Cal.2d 116, 199 P.2d 668, that an order staying proceedings in an action and directing arbitration was not a judgment from which an appeal would lie under section 963, Code of Civil Procedure, where the order did not direct the payment of money or the performance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchwald v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco
...Extraordinary Writs, pp. 2490--2493.) An appeal does not lie from an order compelling arbitration. (Corbett v. Petroleum Maintenance Co., 119 Cal.App.2d 21, 58 P.2d 1077); nor is any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy apparent. We consider certiorari to be the proper SECOND CONTENTION: ......
-
Leavitt v. Beverly Enter.S Inc
...speedy resolution of the dispute-“would be entirely defeated.” Id. at 68, 203 N.W.2d 707 (quoting Corbett v. Petroleum Maintenance Co., 119 Cal.App.2d 21, 258 P.2d 1077 (1953)). Nevertheless, the court recognized that the public policy decision was a determination for the legislature to mak......
-
Woodman v. Ackerman
...such an appeal. (Efron v. Kalmanovitz, supra; Olmstead v. West, 177 Cal.App.2d 652, 654, 2 Cal.Rptr. 443; Corbett v. Petroleum Maintenance Co., 119 Cal.App.2d 21, 258 P.2d 1077; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) Appeal, § 9, p. The question before us has never, so far as we have been able to ......
-
Bertero v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
...proceedings from which appeals may be taken. Under the former statute such an order was not appealable (Corbett v. Petroleum Maintenance Co., 119 Cal.App.2d 21, 258 P.2d 1077) and the 1961 arbitration statute was designed to codify this rule (see 3 California Law Revision Commission, Report......