What are the valid reasons for child name change in California

 

Overview: What are the valid reasons for child name change california

 

HOLDINGS: [1]-A trial court properly denied an employer's motion to compel arbitration of the portion of its former employee's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) claim seeking to recover his underpaid wages because splitting an individual PAGA claim into two claims based on the remedies sought—with the claim for underpaid wages under Lab. Code, § 558, being shunted to arbitration while the claim for the $50/$100 per-pay-period penalties under § 558 remained in court—ran afoul of the primary rights doctrine, as it impermissibly divided a single primary right; [2]-Splitting an individual PAGA claim was inconsistent with labor law because an aggrieved employee's choice to bring a solitary PAGA claim was his choice to make; [3]-Splitting an individual PAGA claim was also inconsistent with arbitration law because arbitration of a PAGA claim was contrary to public policy.

 

Outcome

Order affirmed.

Procedural Posture

The court granted review in two consolidated cases from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, and from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two (California), which held that arbitration was required in disputes between insurance companies and claimants under uninsured motorist policies.

 

Overview:

In one case, the parties disputed whether the claimant was an insured under his sister's policy. In the other case, the claimant obtained a default judgment against the uninsured motorist, and the parties disputed whether that judgment conclusively established damages. The court held that Ins. Code, 11580.2, subd. (f), required arbitration of two issues only: (1) whether the insured was entitled to recover against the uninsured motorist and (2) if so, the amount of the damages. In so holding, the court overruled Van Tassel v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 624, 627, to the extent that it improperly permitted an arbitrator to determine issues other than liability and damages. Accordingly, it was for a court to determine the status of the claimant who asserted he had coverage under his sister's policy because that issue did not pertain to the underinsured tortfeasor's liability to the insured or the amount of damages. In the other case, it was for an arbitrator, and not a court, to decide whether the default judgment bound the insurer because the judgment pertained directly to the underinsured tortfeasor's liability to the insured and the amount of damages owed to the insured.

 

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal in the case in which the claimant's status as an insured was disputed, and that case was remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal in the case in which the default judgment was found to be an arbitrable issue.