Employment lawyer San Bernardino

 

Appellants, a town and others, sought review of a decision by the Santa Clara County Superior Court (California), which denied their petition for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, the California Board of Equalization and others, to deny an application for a license to sell distilled liquor filed by the real party in interest, a restaurant in the town.

Appellees conceded that the town's zoning ordinance was valid but argued that Cal. Const. art. XX, § 22 terminated the "local option" and precluded counties and cities from exercising any control over the issuance and granting of liquor licenses. The restaurant argued that the license was not an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use because the restaurant already had the right to sell wine and beer and the addition of the right to sell distilled spirits did not change the general use of the premises. The Employment lawyer San Bernardino held that: (1) the "local option" was terminated; (2) but, under an amendment to § 15 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, 1935 Cal. Stat. p. 1130, the legislature conferred upon cities and counties the right to control the districts in which various types of liquor business could be carried on by the enactment of valid zoning ordinances; (3) the "grandfather" or savings clause was not applicable; and (4) adding the sale of hard liquor to a business serving wine and beer could substantially change the character of the business so granting the license was an unwarranted enlargement of a nonconforming use.

The court reversed the trial court's decision and issued instructions to issue the writ of mandate.

Plaintiff corporation filed a petition to vacate an arbitration award in favor of defendant corporation for noncompliance with relevant provisions of the California Arbitration Act, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1280 et seq. The Superior Court of Sacramento County (California) denied the petition, ruling that plaintiff had waived these provisions by agreeing to American Arbitration Association (AAA) arbitration. Plaintiff appealed.

The parties agreed to private arbitration in accordance with the AAA's Construction Industry Arbitration Rules. Those rules gave the AAA conclusive authority over challenges to an arbitrator's neutrality. On the other hand, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.91(b)(1) permitted either party uncomfortable with the disclosures of any proposed arbitrator to disqualify him or her within 15 days after receiving the disclosure statement. A dispute arose between the parties, and defendant served a demand for arbitration. Plaintiff subsequently demanded disqualification of the proposed arbitrator within 15 days after receiving his disclosure statement. The AAA determined that there was no good cause for disqualification, affirmed the appointment, and the arbitration proceeded to its conclusion. Plaintiff filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court denied the petition. On appeal, the court reversed, concluding that plaintiff could not waive its statutory rights to disqualify an arbitrator under the methods set forth by the Act. The court stated that the arbitrator's refusal to disqualify himself following plaintiff's timely demand rendered the award subject to vacatur.

The court reversed the order denying the petition to vacate the arbitration award and directed the trial court to enter a new order granting the petition.