California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
September 4, 2014
KURT KNUTSSON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
KTLA, LLC, Defendant and Appellant.
THE OPINION filed on August 12, 2014, 228 Cal.App.4th
1118; ___Cal.Rptr.3d___, is modified as
1. On page 17 [228 Cal.App.4th 1132, advance report, last par., lines 1 and 2], first sentence of the first full paragraph is deleted. The following sentence is inserted in its place:
The second relevant issue involved the Second Circuit’s discussion of “procedural” preconditions to the duty to arbitrate.
2. On page 17 [228 Cal.App.4th 1133, advance report, 1st full par., line 1], first sentence in the second full paragraph, delete the words “taken the position that.” Insert in its place the word “ruled” so the sentence reads:
The Court of Appeals had ruled that so-called issues of “procedural arbitrability” were for the arbitrator, not the court, to resolve.
3. On page 20, first paragraph [228 Cal.App.4th 1135, advance report, 1st full par., lines 21-24], delete the sentence, “So it is clear, nothing in Hong stands for the proposition that when a procedural issue is unrelated to the ultimate disposition of a dispute the arbitrator decides substantive arbitrability.” Insert in its place:
So it is clear, nothing in Hong stands for the proposition that when a procedural issue is unrelated to the dispute’s ultimate disposition, the arbitrator decides substantive arbitrability issues.