Miscellaneous: California Lawyers Association Honors Two Members Of ADR Committee
Jeff Daar And Gary Benton Receive Awards For Past And Continuing Contributions To Alternative Dispute Resolution.
The California Lawyers Association held its annual meeting this past weekend at the Sheraton Universal Hotel in Universal City. Jeff Daar and Gary Benton received awards for outstanding contributions to the profession and to ADR. Both Jeff and Gary have been instrumental in promoting California as a venue for international arbitration and in promoting California International Arbitration Week.
Jeff Daar, Gary Benton, Chief Justice Hon. Patricia Guerrero
Selfie of Chief Justice and blogger.
Members of ADR Committee of Litigation Section of CLA
Legislation: State Bar Committee Will Recommend Certification Program For ADR Neutrals
From the California State Bar Website:
Alternative Dispute Resolution Certification Working Group.
Purpose
Effective January 1, 2025, new Business and Professions Code section 6173 requires the State Bar to create a voluntary certification program for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) firms, providers, and practitioners. This program aims to promote adherence to ethical standard for ADR services and establish consumer protection mechanisms. State Bar staff formed an ADR Certification Working Group to develop the framework and implementation strategy for this new certification program.
Learn more about the Working Group’s Charge.
Composition
The working group includes 21 nominated and appointed members. Members were selected to ensure comprehensive expertise and diverse experience in alternative dispute resolution, consumer protection, and program administration.
Staff contact
Mia Ellis, 213-765-9110, Mia.Ellis@calbar.ca.gov
Alan Wiener, 213-765-1157, Alan.Wiener@calbar.ca.gov
Chair: Hon. Risë Pichon (Ret.)
Additional information
Subscribe
You may subscribe to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Certification Working Group email list to receive meeting notifications.
Protecting the public & enhancing the administration of justice.
Arbitration, Deadlines: Cal Supreme Court Saves Arbitration Deadline From Preemption By Making It More Palatable.
The Case Is Hohenshelt v. Superior Court.
We have written about the Hohenshelt case twice in the Daily Journal. The first time around, the case was in the Court of Appeal. After it was decided by the California Supreme Court, with a majority opinion, some concurrence, and some disagreement, we wrote a second article for the Daily Journal dated August 18, 2025. This case saved from federal preemption the 30-day deadline employers and other drafters of arbitration agreements have to pay arbitration fees, or else risk seeing the employee or consumer opt for litigation in court. However, the case did so only by making the 30-day rule less of a bright line, hence, more palatable. Here is a link to our Daily Journal article: Here
Mediation: The Curious Exclusion of Inactive Attorneys From Mediation.
The Case Is Morris S. Getzels v. State Bar.
We are pleased to be able to give readers a direct link to our July 2, 2025 Daily Journal article about the Getzels case. The article is entitled “The curious exclusion of inactive attorneys from mediation.” And here is a link: https://calmediation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Getzels-DJ-7-2-25.pdf
Transition To A New Platform
Typepad announced rather precipitously that this blog would become extinct at the end of September 2025. Yikes!
We had to scramble to migrate this blog from Typepad to a new platform. Since we have published this blog since 2012, and it has 1200 posts about California mediation and arbitration, it seemed worth expending some time, effort, and expense to keep the blog alive.
Fortunately, a techie in the family directed me to Fiverr, a website that offers the services of expert freelancers. We found one, and he did a quick and efficient job migrating the blog. If you are able to read this blog online, then the migration was successful. And if you want to know more about how this was accomplished, feel free to contact me directly. calmediation@gmail.com.
Undoubtedly it will take us time to master the “backend” of the blog hidden from your view and used to prepare and publish our posts. Please be patient with us while we learn new skills.
Arbitration, PAGA: “Headless” PAGA Claims Held Allowable Under Pre-2024 California PAGA Law
A "Headless" PAGA Claims Is Permitted Pre-2024, But Now The Law Has Changed.
Headless Statue of Athena, Goddess of Wisdom. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Carole Raddato, photographer.
A “headless” PAGA case is one in which the plaintiff abandons their individual PAGA claims and pursues only representative claims on behalf of other employees and the State. This has been a tactic used to avoid arbitration of personal claims and preserve standing to litigate nonindividual PAGA representative claims in court. Because SCOTUS held in 2022 in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, that individual PAGA claimants could be compelled to arbitrate their individual labor law claim, employees and their attorneys in California used the workaround of dropping individual claims so that representative claims could be litigated in court.
The Fifth District holds that headless PAGA actions are permissible under the pre-2024 version of PAGA. CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court, F088569 (5th Dist. 7/7/25) (Franson, Detjen, De Santos).
COMMENT: PAGA law changed for civil actions filed on or after June 19, 2024. If CRST Expedited had been filed on or after June 19, 2024, the post-2024 PAGA framework would not permit headless PAGA cases. Under the new law, because Sanchez (the plaintiff) would have had to have personally suffered each alleged violation to bring a PAGA action for others, dismissing his individual claims would strip him of standing for headless claims. The viability of proceeding without individual claims would vanish.