California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

ALAN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (UBS PAINEWEBBER INC.), B164153

In an action to compel arbitration to be conducted by a securities industry self-regulatory organization (SRO) that will not comply with ethical standards for arbitrators recently promulgated by the California Judicial Council, the trial court should first decide if California is a proper location for the arbitration, applying principles that determine whether a forum selection clause is valid. If California is the proper location, the dispute should be tried in a court in California because the SRO will not arbitrate the matter here.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 08/14/2003
  • Published 08/14/2003

Judges

  • MALLANO, J.

Court

  • California Court of Appeal

Counsel

  • For Appellant:
  •  Overland & Borenstein, Mark E. Overland, Mark A. Borenstein, Santa Monica, and Kelley B. Poleynard for Petitioner., Hamburg, Karic, Edwards & Martin, Steven S. Karic and Fredric R. Brandfon, Los Angeles, for Real Party in Interest Bradford A. Phillips., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David S. Chaney, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence K. Keethe, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Amy J. Winn, Deputy Attorneys General for the State of California as Amicus Curiae.

  • For Appellees:
  • No appearance for Respondent., Keesal, Young & Logan, Stephen Young, Thomas R. Trainor, Long Beach, and Dawn M. Schock for Real Parties in Interest UBS PaineWebber Inc. and Correspondent Services Corporation.
Copied to clipboard