Defendant homeowners sought review of an order of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which dismissed their petition for an order staying plaintiff contractors' action and directing that arbitration proceed.

Break News Russia & Ukraine: Russia news

The parties executed a contract whereby the contractors were to build a house for the homeowners. The homeowners refused to pay the last two installments, and the contractors filed suit. The homeowners alleged that the contract contained an arbitration clause and that the action should be stayed pending arbitration. The trial court found that there was no agreement for arbitration. On appeal, the court stated that the homeowner's appeal was essentially a cross-complaint for specific performance of a contract to arbitrate. The court noted that a cross-complaint was not considered sufficiently independent to allow a separate final judgment to be entered upon it, unless the judgment on the cross-complaint could be considered final as to some of the parties. Since the parties to both actions were identical, an appeal could not be allowed merely because the cross-petition was dismissed. Furthermore, the order could not be considered a final judgment in a collateral proceeding growing out of the action because the ruling as to the right to arbitration was not considered a final determination of that issue. Thus, the court lacked jurisdiction because there was no appealable final order. The court dismissed the appeal.