A former employee's legal battle against his previous employer has hit a significant roadblock. On August 22, 2024, John Driggers filed a complaint in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, against Southwest Traders Inc., seeking to vacate an arbitration award that had ruled in favor of his former employer.
John Driggers, who previously worked for Southwest Traders Inc., initiated arbitration proceedings following his termination from the company. The arbitrator eventually granted Southwest’s motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing Driggers' claims. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Driggers petitioned the trial court to vacate the arbitration award. He argued that the arbitrator had erred prejudicially by refusing to continue the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and alleged that the award was obtained through corruption, fraud, or other unfair means.
Despite these serious allegations, the trial court denied Driggers' petition on its merits without confirming the arbitration award. The record does not indicate that a formal judgment was entered following this decision. Subsequently, Driggers appealed this denial 104 days after the order was issued.
However, procedural issues have complicated Driggers' appeal. According to California law, an appealable judgment or order is essential for appellate jurisdiction. As stated in Art Movers, Inc. v. Ni West, Inc., “the court must dismiss an appeal from a nonappealable order.” Neither party addressed whether the trial court’s order denying Driggers’ petition was appealable—a critical oversight given its implications for jurisdiction.
Under Code Civ. Proc., § 1294(b), an aggrieved party may appeal from an order dismissing a petition to confirm, correct, or vacate an award but cannot appeal from an order merely denying vacation or correction of an arbitration award unless it is reviewed upon an appeal from a judgment of confirmation. Since no such judgment exists in this case, Driggers’ appeal is deemed nonappealable and must be dismissed.
The court also declined to reinterpret the order as either a writ of mandate or an order dismissing the petition due to two main reasons: First, writ petitions generally need to be filed within 60 days of the trial court’s order—Driggers filed his appeal well beyond this period at 104 days post-order. Second, treating appeals from nonappealable orders as writ applications could encourage litigants to bypass procedural rules intentionally.
In determining whether an order is appealable by examining its substance and effect rather than its label—as seen in Maplebear Inc. v. Busick—the court found that denying a petition on substantive grounds does not constitute a final disposition and thus remains non-appealable.
Ultimately, Judge Mesiwala dismissed John Driggers' appeal while granting Southwest Traders Inc. recovery of its costs on appeal per California Rules of Court rule 8.278(a)(1). Judges Duarte and Krause concurred with this decision under Case ID C099590 (Super Ct No STKCVUCP20230002539).