Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Superior Court

201 Cal. App. 3d 924, 247 Cal. Rptr. 477, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 494
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 11, 1988
DocketD007910
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 201 Cal. App. 3d 924 (Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Superior Court, 201 Cal. App. 3d 924, 247 Cal. Rptr. 477, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Opinion

TODD, J.

The opinion filed May 11, 1988, is ordered published.

Real party, Thomas Downs, filed suit against petitioner, PrudentialBache Securities, Inc. (Bache). Bache brought a motion to compel arbitration which was denied. On July 14, 1987, Bache filed a timely notice of appeal.

In December 1987, real party was ordered to court for failure to file an at issue memorandum. After a hearing real party was ordered to file an at issue memorandum and the case has been set for trial on June 22, 1988.

Code of Civil Procedure section 916 provides that “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court. . . upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby . . . .” Here Bache appealed the order denying arbitration. That appeal affects the entire case. Thus, further trial court proceedings are stayed under Code of Civil Procedure section 916. The fact that this is a “fast track” case does not annul or make inoperative previous statutes and case law.

An alternative writ or order to show cause would add nothing to the presentation. A peremptory writ is proper. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088; United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359 [169 Cal.Rptr. 827]; Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692, 697 [96 Cal.Rptr. 165].)

*926 Let a peremptory writ issue directing the superior court to vacate the trial date of June 22, 1988, and to entertain no further proceedings until the remittitur issues.

Kremer, P. J., and Wiener, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino
106 P.3d 958 (California Supreme Court, 2005)
Honig v. Financial Corp. of America
6 Cal. App. 4th 960 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
231 Cal. App. 3d 481 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
Miller v. Superior Court
221 Cal. App. 3d 1200 (California Court of Appeal, 1990)
Moyal v. Lanphear
208 Cal. App. 3d 491 (California Court of Appeal, 1989)
Anderson v. Hughes Helicopter
865 F.2d 263 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
Zimmerman v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc.
205 Cal. App. 3d 153 (California Court of Appeal, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 Cal. App. 3d 924, 247 Cal. Rptr. 477, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-bache-securities-inc-v-superior-court-calctapp-1988.