Appellant law firms sought
On Sale
$2.00
$2.00
Appellant law firms sought review of an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, denying their motions to compel arbitration in a suit against respondent, the City of Hope, California.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a Los Angeles restaurant lawyer
The City of Hope, California, its national medical center, and its research institute, operated a cancer treatment facility. Upon her termination from the facility, the chief operating officer claimed she was sexually harassed. After an investigation by outside counsel, the City settled the matter by paying money in exchange for a release. The employees who were guilty of the alleged harassment departed the company. Their claims against the City where also settled. Later, the City filed a complaint against the law firms it had retained to settle the matters. The law firms moved for arbitration claiming they were third party beneficiaries of the settlement agreements which contained arbitration provisions. Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected this theory. The law firms could not prove they were intended beneficiaries of the settlement agreements.
The judgment was affirmed.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a Los Angeles restaurant lawyer
Overview
The City of Hope, California, its national medical center, and its research institute, operated a cancer treatment facility. Upon her termination from the facility, the chief operating officer claimed she was sexually harassed. After an investigation by outside counsel, the City settled the matter by paying money in exchange for a release. The employees who were guilty of the alleged harassment departed the company. Their claims against the City where also settled. Later, the City filed a complaint against the law firms it had retained to settle the matters. The law firms moved for arbitration claiming they were third party beneficiaries of the settlement agreements which contained arbitration provisions. Both the trial court and the appellate court rejected this theory. The law firms could not prove they were intended beneficiaries of the settlement agreements.
Outcome
The judgment was affirmed.