Legal Opinion

Muao v. Grosvenor Properties, Ltd.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 28, 2002No. A095772PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PARRILLI, J.

Roy Muao appeals from an order granting defendants’ petition to compel arbitration and dismissing his action for wrongful termination. In his briefs, he challenges only that part of the order directing arbitration. Defendants move to dismiss the appeal because Muao’s appellate claim is not reviewable at this time. We conclude that under California law, the appeal must be dismissed as premature. Additionally, we reject Muao’s argument that review of the arbitration order is permissible at this time under section 16(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act. (9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3).)…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Johnson v. FankellSupreme Court of the United States · 1997

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Cable Connection, Inc. v. DirecTV, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Abramson v. Juniper Networks, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
  3. Nelsen v. Legacy Partners Residential, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. Aanderud v. Superior Court of Kern Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  5. Webb v. American Employers GroupNebraska Supreme Court · 2004

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API