Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. Superior Court
Filed 6/27/06 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton v. Superior Court CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; __________________________________ JOHN M. CLAREY et al., Real Parties in Interest. | B181857 (Super. Ct. No. BC320011)
|
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. William Fahey, Judge. Petition denied.
Munger, Tolles & Olson, Brad D. Brian, Mark B. Helm, Joseph S. Klapach and J. Raza Lawrence for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Howarth & Smith, Don Howarth, Suzelle M. Smith and Paul Llewellyn for Real Parties in Interest.
________________________________
In this writ proceeding, petitioners challenge the trial court's denial of their request to confirm an arbitration award. The issue this court must resolve is whether the parties' settlement agreement in an underlying action provided for arbitration of the parties' dispute over the correct answer to a legal question, or something more akin to an advisory opinion from a panel of retired justices to be used in aid of settlement. Petitioners contend the proceeding before the panel constitutes an arbitration. Real parties in interest argue there was no agreement to arbitrate any controversy, no arbitration held, and no arbitration award rendered by the panel. We agree with the position of real parties in interest. Accordingly, we deny the writ petition.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
In an underlying legal malpractice action, real parties in interest John Clarey and Christy Clarey sued petitioners the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton and four attorneys (collectively, Sheppard) concerning Sheppard's representation of the Clareys in connection with the sale of their computer services firm, TeleCore. Shortly before trial in that case, the parties went to mediation and entered into a confidential settlement agreement.[1] As part of the settlement, they agreed to brief and argue the following question before a panel of three retired justices affiliated with JAMS: â€
