California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
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 ...