Legal Opinion
Baar v. Tigerman
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 17, 1983No. Docket Nos. 64463, 65501, 65888PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KLEIN, P. J.
Plaintiffs and appellants Baar, Lustbader, Edelman, et al. (appellants) in all three cases appeal from orders dismissing their complaints after the trial court sustained defendants, and respondents’ American Arbitration Association (AAA) and Bert Z. Tigerman (Tigerman, and collectively, respondents) demurrers.
We decline to grant quasi-judicial immunity to an arbitrator who breaches his contract to render a timely award. Further, we hold that arbitral immunity does not extend to a private arbitration association for its administrative actions.
Procedural and Factual Background
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Stump v. SparkmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Bradley v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Lundgren v. FreemanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- George Corey, Trust Fund v. New York Stock ExchangeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Moore v. ConliffeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- L & H AIRCO, INC. v. Rapistan Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Greenspan v. LADT, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Woodard v. Southern California Permanente Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.