Court Opinion

ID: 9726686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:03:50.095989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:29.720427
License: Public Domain

BRAUER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I join in the opinion of the court except as to part 6. My disagreement with that part also affects the disposition.
The cross-complaints in this case were clearly compulsory ones as they arose “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or *384occurrences” as plaintiff’s causes of action (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.10, subd. (c), 426.30). Therefore, manufacturer’s demand for trial de novo after arbitration “on the complaint only” resulted in the submission of the entire cause to judicial re-evaluation. (Trump v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 411, 417 [173 Cal.Rptr. 403].) It follows that dealer’s subsequent demand was an idle and superfluous act; and Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.21, subdivision (a) did not come into play because dealer was not “the party electing the trial de novo.” I would hold that the trial court should have taxed the cost items attributable to the arbitration.