Fear Not Law Articles: Yeroushalmi v. Benecity

Yeroushalmi v. Benecity

Filed 7/26/07 Yeroushalmi v. Benecity CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MONICA YEROUSHALMI,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

BENECITY, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

B190064

x-ref. B179527

(Super. Ct. No. BC 319016)

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James R. Dunn, Judge. Dismissed.

________

Law Offices of Peter Sloan and Peter Sloan for Defendants and Appellants Benecity, Inc., and Andrea Rossetto.

Covington & Burling, Donald W. Brown and Jessica D. Gabel for Defendants and Appellants Yasmina Berriche and M. Ziyed MBazaia.

Mesisca, Riley & Kreitenberg, Dennis P. Riley, Rena E. Kreitenberg, and Mike N. Vo for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________

Benecity, Inc., Andrea Rossetto, Yasmina Berriche, and M. Ziyed MBazaia (collectively, appellants) appealed from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration of Monica Yeroushalmis claims against appellants, including claims for employment discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Govt. Code, 12900 et seq.) and for wrongful discharge. Appellants contended that the trial court erred in finding the arbitration provision in Benecitys employment agreement unconscionable and ruling that the unconscionable terms should not be severed. Appellants Berriche and MBazaia filed an appeal on March 23, 2006; appellants Benecity, Inc. and Andrea Rossetto separately filed an appeal on March 24, 2006.

This case came before us for oral argument on March 21, 2007. At that time, due to the near certainty of additional appeals if the parties did not settle and the likely substantial court costs relative to the amount at stake in the case, we recommended that the parties attempt to settle the case and request dismissal of the appeals. They agreed to do so. We continued oral arguments twice while the parties worked out a settlement. On July 12, 2007 and July 17, 2007, in accordance with the terms of their settlement agreement, the parties filed joint notices of settlement and requests for dismissal of the appeals in which the parties stipulated to the settlement of all issues between all parties. In accordance with this request, we dismiss the appeals.

DISPOSITION

The parties request for dismissal of the appeals is granted. The appeals filed on March 23, 2006 and March 24, 2006 are both dismissed with prejudice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.244(a)(1), (c).) In accordance with their stipulation, the parties are to bear their own costs on appeal. The remittitur shall issue forthwith. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.244(c)(2).)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

We concur:

MALLANO, Acting P. J.

VOGEL, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

Description	Benecity, Inc., Andrea Rossetto, Yasmina Berriche, and M. Ziyed MBazaia (collectively, appellants) appealed from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration of Monica Yeroushalmis claims against appellants, including claims for employment discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Govt. Code, 12900 et seq.) and for wrongful discharge. Appellants contended that the trial court erred in finding the arbitration provision in Benecitys employment agreement unconscionable and ruling that the unconscionable terms should not be severed. Appellants Berriche and MBazaia filed an appeal on March 23, 2006; appellants Benecity, Inc. and Andrea Rossetto separately filed an appeal on March 24, 2006. This case came before us for oral argument on March 21, 2007. At that time, due to the near certainty of additional appeals if the parties did not settle and the likely substantial court costs relative to the amount at stake in the case, we recommended that the parties attempt to settle the case and request dismissal of the appeals. They agreed to do so. We continued oral arguments twice while the parties worked out a settlement. On July 12, 2007 and July 17, 2007, in accordance with the terms of their settlement agreement, the parties filed joint notices of settlement and requests for dismissal of the appeals in which the parties stipulated to the settlement of all issues between all parties. In accordance with this request, Court dismiss the appeals.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.