|Help

Blurring the Line Between Arbitration and Litigation: California Court Holds that Parties Can Explicitly Contract for Judicial Review of ArbitratorТs Decision in Baize v. Eastridge Cos., L.L.C. - JAA 2007 Vol. 6, No. 1

Author(s): 
Christine Prokopick
Page Count: 
14 pages
Media Description: 
PDF from "Journal of American Arnitration (JAA)"
Published: 
July, 2011
Jurisdictions: 
United States
Practice Areas: 
Contractual or Consensual Basis of Arbitration,
Employment,
Court Decisions,
Other
Author Detail: 

Christine Prokopick, J.D. Candidate, Penn State Dickinson School of Law (2009); M.A. Teaching of
English, Columbia University; B.A. English, Columbia College. The author
thanks her mother and father for their continuing support and encouragement.

PDF140.7 KB

$40.00
Description: 

Originally from:

Journal of American Arbitration (JAA) - Vol. 6, No. 1

Preview Page

ARTICLES

Blurring the Line Between Arbitration and
Litigation: California Court Holds that
Parties Can Explicitly Contract for Judicial
Review of Arbitrator’s Decision in Baize v.
Eastridge Cos., L.L.C.
By Christine Prokopick

I. OVERVIEW
After Jeffery Baize (Baize) prevailed in a binding arbitration
against his former employer, Eastridge Companies, L.L.C.
(Eastridge), and petitioned to confirm the award, Eastridge moved
to vacate the award in California Courts.1 The dispute between
Eastridge and Baize arose out of an employment agreement
(Agreement) that the parties entered in July 2001.2 Eastridge, a
California-based company focused on developing projects in
education, hired Baize to work on current company projects as
well as to develop new projects.3 The Agreement stated that if