|
p0586 The fact that parties had agreed to arbitration in a foreign country and pursuant to religious principles of disputes concerning the distribution of funds that were the subject of in interpleader action brought by a custodian of those funds did not divest the California court of jurisdiction over the interpleader action, since the arbitration could result in an award enforceable in California.CitationDIAL 800 v FESBINDER (Rabbinical Arbitration) 118 CA4 32 [See: CCP 386; City v Brown 71 CA4 1114, T/AT 6/99; Brock v Kaiser 10 CA4 1790, T/AT 1/93]
|
|
