Legal Opinion

Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Kors

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 5, 2011No. A125732PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*46Opinion

KLINE, P. J.

This case involves a fee dispute between a law firm, respondent Benjamin, Weill & Mazer, a professional corporation (BWM), and its former client, appellant Nancy Hurwitz Kors. After Kors refused to pay the full amount billed her, BWM sued her for breach of the parties’ fee agreement. Based on the arbitration clause in the agreement, Kors moved to compel arbitration under the California Arbitration Act (CAA) (Code Civ. Proc., § 1280 et seq.).1 The court granted the motion and directed binding arbitration pursuant to the rules of the Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF).…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Moncharsh v. Heily & BlaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. People v. ChatmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Ernst v. SearleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
  2. Phillips v. Sprint PCSCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. Nemecek & Cole v. HornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. Fleur Du Lac Estates Ass'n v. MansouriCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. Arshonsky v. Kim, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019

12 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