Skip to main content

An Attorney's Age Discrimination Suit, Plus Criminal & Arbitration Matters

By FindLaw Staff on July 12, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Reeves v. MV Transp. Inc., A125927, concerned a challenge to the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff's age discrimination suit against a company, claiming that he was not selected for an interview and not hired for a staff attorney position because he was 56 years old.  In affirming the trial court's judgment, the court held that plaintiff's qualifications were not so superior to those of the person selected as to make the selection of that person unreasonable as required for a credentials-based finding of pretext.  Further, the court held that defendant did not offer inconsistent justifications for the hiring decision, and that spoliation alone does not create a triable issue.

Molecular Analytical Sys. v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc., H032845, concerned a challenge to the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration in plaintiff's suit for breach of contract and other claims, involving licensing of technology rights and assignment of those rights.  In reversing the denial, the court remanded the matter with instructions to enter a new and different order granting defendant's motion to compel arbitration in concluding that plaintiff cannot avoid arbitrating its claims against the signatory defendant because those claims are within the reach of the arbitration clause.  The court went onto hold that plaintiff cannot avoid arbitrating its claims against the nonsignatory defendant because those claims are inextricably bound up with the obligations arising out of the agreement containing the arbitration clause.

In re Watford, C062550, concerned a defendant's petition for habeas relief challenging his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender, claiming that he cannot be held for failing to register because the predicate sex offense has been vacated and will not be retried.  In denying the habeas corpus petition, the court held that the dismissal of defendant's predicate Massachusetts offense after he was convicted of violating section 290 in California is no defense to his registration conviction.

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard