California Court of Appeal

Refusal to approve class action settlement based on counsel for defendant's misleading of plaintiffs in the course of negotiations by offering to make significant modifications to its travel insurance program that, unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, it had already made for reasons unrelated to the lawsuit, is affirmed where the trial court did not err in ruling that due to its misleading conduct, defendant lost its right to compel arbitration.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/06/2007
• Published 07/06/2007

Judges

• SIGGINS, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• John J. Bartko,Charles G. Miller, Christopher D. Sullivan, Jae S. Yi, Bartko, Zankel, Tarrant & Miller, San Francisco, Jerome B. Falk, Jr., Steven L. Mayer, Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, San Francisco, for Defendants and Appellants., David M. Fried, Law Offices of David M. Fried, San Francisco, Theodore W. Phillips, Phillips, Greenberg & Hauser, Placerville, Max Folkenflik, Folkenflik & McGerity, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.