MP asserts on motion for recosideration that §1295 medical negligence Ks for arbitration are exempt from the Court's discretion under 1281.2(c). MP would be correct, if the arbitration clause here was §1295-compliant. It is not even close.
The on-line arbitration provision here appears as the last item of the contract, not the first article as required by §1295. The arbitration provison is not written in the mandatory, plain language of § 1295, but in a legally convoluted sentence which first exempts out "Small Claims... Medicare... and ERISA" matters. The arbitration clause of the on-line contract is not in capital letters as set forth in the statute; and is not in "at least 10-point bold face red type" as required by statute.
So §1295 is clearly not an applicable exemption here and MP knows it is not an applicable exemption here.
The court system does not have the resources to re-hear all previously adjudicated motions where the claimed "new law" is so clearly inapplicable. MP please
Hearing Date
April 15, 2009
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MP asserts on motion for recosideration that §1295 medical negligence Ks for arbitration are exempt from the Court's discretion under 1281.2(c). MP would be correct, if the arbitration clause here was §1295-compliant. It is not even close.
The on-line arbitration provision here appears as the last item of the contract, not the first article as required by §1295. The arbitration provison is not written in the mandatory, plain language of § 1295, but in a legally convoluted sentence which first exempts out "Small Claims... Medicare... and ERISA" matters. The arbitration clause of the on-line contract is not in capital letters as set forth in the statute; and is not in "at least 10-point bold face red type" as required by statute.
So §1295 is clearly not an applicable exemption here and MP knows it is not an applicable exemption here.
The court system does not have the resources to re-hear all previously adjudicated motions where the claimed "new law" is so clearly inapplicable. MP please