........................................................Chapter 5: Disposition without Trial

..........................................................A. Arbitration
1. Contractual Arbitration
p.478, add new para. 2, after "1281.2.": An issue subject to arbitration may be mixed in with one that is not. A single overlapping issue is sufficient to request a stay of the judicial proceedings. The stay might be issued regarding only the issue subject to arbitration. The purpose of a stay is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until the arbitration is resolved. Absent a stay, continuing proceedings in the trial court will likely disrupt the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective. CCP 1281.4 (single issue) & Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Super. Court, 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 645, 649-650 (2008).

3. International Arbitration
p. 516, case update: Gueyffier was decided by the California Supreme Court, holding that an arbitrator does not exceed his powers when he applies equitable defenses to excuse a party from performing a material condition of an agreement that provides the arbitrator may not modify or change any of the agreement’s material provisions. Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd., ___ Cal. 4th ___, ___, ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, ___, ___ P.3d ___ (2008) [2008 WL 2331046].

.......................................................................F. Settlement
2. Settlement Planning
.....(a) Good Faith Settlement Hearing
p. 581, new n.7: Should a plaintiff retain the unilateral right to determine which defendant or defendants should be included in an action, for the limited purpose of allocating the respective percentages of fault? Henry v. Super. Court, 160 Cal.App.4th 440, 449, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 808, 812 (2008).

...................................................................H. Reconsideration
p. 622, add new para (c): Instead of the above part (b) motion, assume that Pam's lawyer brazenly makes a non-complying motion for reconsideration—with a view toward triggering the same judge's decision to reverse his original decision. There is no new fact or law on which to base the fresh motion. While this obviously defeats the purpose of CCP § 1008, nothing in the statute or Goel precludes the filing of the above motion (although it is subject to a finding that it is a frivolous motion and subject to sanctions). The statute itself "does not erect a permanent, insurmountable barrier to reconsideration by the trial court on its own motion." How should the court react? In re Marriage of Barthold, 158 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1309, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 691, 696 (2008).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved for Future Use

...........................................................A. Arbitration
2. Judicial Arbitration
4. Federal Preemption
...........................................................B. Mediation
1. Statutory Regime
2. Confidentiality
.........................................................................D. Dismissal
1. Voluntary Dismissal
2. Involuntary Dismissal
....(a) Failure to Prosecute
.................................. ...............................E. Default Judgment

........................................................................F. Settlement
1. General Procedure
3. Offer of Judgment
...............................................................G. Summary Judgment
1. Statutory Regime
2. Required Burden
.