California public policy favors arbitration as “a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution.” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9.) By enacting the California Arbitration Act (CAA), the Legislature expressed “its strong support for private arbitration and the finality of arbitral awards.” (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 32.) “To support this policy and encourage parties to settle their disputes through arbitration, it is essential that arbitration judgments be both binding and final. Thus, as a general rule, courts will indulge every reasonable intendment to give effect to arbitration proceedings.” (A.M. Classic Const., Inc. v. Tri-Build Development Co. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1477-1478.)
“It is thus well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.... [W]ith limited exceptions... an arbitrator’s decision is not generally reviewable for errors of fact or law, whether or not such error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice to the parties. Judicial review of private arbitration awards is ordinarily limited to the statutory grounds for vacating an award (Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.2) and correcting an award (Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.6).” (SunLine Transit Agency v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1277 (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 292, 302-303; Reed v. Mutual Service Corp. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1365.)
If the court does not vacate or correct an arbitration award, “the court must confirm the award.” (Law Offices of David S. Karton v. Segreto (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.)
“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1285.)
The court shall vacate an arbitration award if it determines any of the following:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 1286.2(a).)
The party asserting a statutory basis for vacating an arbitration award bears the burden of establishing facts supporting their position. (Reed v. Mutual Service Corp. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1370-1371.) Without evidence, the court cannot determine as a matter of fact that any impropriety occurred at the arbitration. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 568, 573; Creative Plastering, Inc. v. Hedley Builders, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1662, 1665.)
A party seeking to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that it was obtained through corruption, fraud, or other unfair means must satisfy a three-part test:
(Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 830.)
An arbitrator “must disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed arbitrator would be able to be impartial.” (Guseinov v. Burns (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 944, 956.) “Whether an award is tainted by bias because an arbitrator failed to disclose a particular relationship is a factual determination made by the court reviewing the award. The party claiming bias bears the burden of establishing facts supporting its position.” (Id. at p. 957.)
“When a party contends it was substantially prejudiced by the arbitrator's exclusion of material evidence, a court should generally consider prejudice before materiality.” (Epic Medical Management, LLC v. Paquette (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 504, 518.) “To find substantial prejudice, the court must first accept the arbitrator's theory and conclude the arbitrator might well have made a different award had the evidence been allowed.” (Id.)
“[T]he court, unless it vacates the award pursuant to Section 1286.2, shall correct the award and confirm it as corrected if the court determines that:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 1286.6.)
“It is well settled that arbitrators do not exceed their powers merely because they assign an erroneous reason for their decisions.” (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at 28.) Instead, “[a]rbitrators may exceed their powers by issuing an award that violates a party’s unwaivable statutory rights or that contravenes an explicit legislative expression of public policy.” (Ling v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1252.) “Absent a clear expression of illegality or public policy undermining this strong presumption in favor of private arbitration, an arbitral award should ordinarily stand immune from judicial scrutiny.” (Id.)
The court may not vacate an award unless:
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.4.)
“If [the party who lost in the arbitration does] not serve and file a petition to vacate or a response to [a] petition to confirm within the 100–day period from the date of service of the award... the award must be treated as final.” (Klubnikin v. California Fair Plan Assn. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 393, 398.)
An arbitrator may “correct the award upon any of the grounds set forth in subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 1286.6 not later than 30 days after service of a signed copy of the award on the applicant.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1284.) “Under the statutory grounds for correction recognized in section 1284, the arbitrator may not reconsider the merits of the original award and make a new award under the guise of correction of the award.” (Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corporation (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1, 14.) “[A]n arbitrator has no power to use the incremental award process to correct or modify the terms of an original award.” (Roehl v. Ritchie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 338, 351.)
Quintana PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD [Reciprocal Motions] Moving Party: Petitioner Jonathan Kraut (Confirm) Petitioner Levi Quintana (Vacate) Responding Party: Petitioner Levi Quintana (Confirm) Petitioner Jonathan Kraut (Vacate) RELIEF REQUESTED: Confirm Arbitration Award and enter judgment according to it. Vacate (Cancel) Arbitration Award. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Jonathan D.
Jan 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING Petitioner Wyf San Diego, LLC's motion to correct or vacate arbitration award is denied.
Dec 17, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
., Case No. 20STCP01735 Tentative Ruling re: Petitioners’ Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award; Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award Petitioners Matthew Hulsizer and Jennifer Just move to confirm the arbitration award rendered in their favor in the matter of Matthew Hulsizer and Jennifer Just vs. Premier Rail Services, Inc., American Arbitration Association case no. 01-19-0000-8895. Respondent Premier Rail Services, Inc. moves to vacate the Arbitration award.
Dec 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
HEARING ON PETITION TO/FOR VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD FILED BY REALL, INC., ROGER CUMMINGS, SHERIE CORSELLO * TENTATIVE RULING: * The petition to vacate the arbitration award, filed by petitioners Reali, Inc., broker of record Roger Cummings, and real estate agent-employee Sherie Corsello (collectively, "Reali"), is denied. The award is confirmed. Respondents shall recover attorneys’ fees and interest, as discussed below.
Dec 03, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
.: BC607148 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: RENEWED MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD Date: November 24, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Payment World, LLC and Roman Balanko RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff MH Pillars Ltd. The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
Nov 24, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD On December 18, 2017, Plaintiff Rose Diplomat, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mary Nelsen, Emily Paine, Franklin Paine, Julianna Paine Fritz, Donald Stratton, Christine Stratton, Raymond Weamer, Joan Weamer, Pamela Hanover, Thomas Banning, Jr., William L. Banning, Patricia Hanover, Margaret Parker, Norah Gail Forgues, Terry R. Parker, and Gary W.
Nov 23, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Petition to Dismiss/Vacate Arbitration Award (Petition) filed on 9-3-20 under ROA No. 2. Claimant (Leona Horowitz) is to give notice.
Nov 20, 2020
Orange County, CA
Petition to Dismiss/Vacate Arbitration Award (filed on 9-3-20 under ROA No. 2) is set on 11-20-20 at 10:00 a.m.
Nov 17, 2020
Orange County, CA
On February 25, 2020, Petitioner filed a response in the Lead Case to Respondent’s petition to vacate arbitration award filed in the Vacate Case. In its March 6, 2020 minute order in the Lead Case, the Court set a June 5, 2020 hearing date on the motion to confirm arbitration award and the petition to vacate the arbitration award. The hearing on both matters was eventually set for August 20, 2020 via an oral stipulation between the parties.
Nov 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Rice (1) Petitioner’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award Moving Party: Petitioner Tina Chapman Responding Party: Respondents Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, and Maria C. Nicdao Ruling: Petitioner Tina Chapman’s Petition to Vacate the September 19, 2019, Arbitration Award is denied. Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award As a general rule, the merits of an arbitrator’s decision are not subject to judicial review.
Nov 12, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award A. Legal Standard “Under California law, the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award is very narrow. [Citation.] Consistent with this limited role, a court may vacate an arbitral award only on certain statutorily enumerated grounds. [Citation.]
Nov 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award A. Legal Standard “Under California law, the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award is very narrow. [Citation.] Consistent with this limited role, a court may vacate an arbitral award only on certain statutorily enumerated grounds. [Citation.]
Nov 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award A. Legal Standard “Under California law, the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award is very narrow. [Citation.] Consistent with this limited role, a court may vacate an arbitral award only on certain statutorily enumerated grounds. [Citation.]
Nov 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award A. Legal Standard “Under California law, the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award is very narrow. [Citation.] Consistent with this limited role, a court may vacate an arbitral award only on certain statutorily enumerated grounds. [Citation.]
Nov 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
See discussion under motion to vacate arbitration award, above. Moving party to give notice.
Nov 06, 2020
Orange County, CA
On September 1, 2020, Respondent filed her response and Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Legal Standard Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.”
Nov 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On September 1, 2020, Respondent filed her response and Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Legal Standard Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.”
Nov 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Respondents have made arguments that a party would make on demurrer and not in response to a petition to confirm/vacate arbitration or a petition to compel arbitration. “A petition to compel arbitration ‘ “is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract.” ’ [Citations.]” (Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 515, 532 [omitting extensive caselaw].).
Oct 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD (CCP § 1286.6) TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner Jerry Lujan’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is DENIED. ANALYSIS: Petitioner Jerry Lujan (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award (“the Petition”) against Respondent Susan Clark (“Respondent”) on January 21, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.
Oct 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Petition to Dismiss/Vacate Arbitration Award (filed on 9-3-20 under ROA No. 2 in Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01158913) for hearing on 11-17-20 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C19. Court Clerk is to give notice.
Oct 20, 2020
Orange County, CA
u The Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award with Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities. u The Supporting Declaration of Jerold Fagelbaum and the following accompanying exhibits: u Demand for Arbitration Form with attached agreements in JAMS Arbitration REF No. 1220065512, dated 6/12/20, (Exh. A); u Demand for Arbitration and Statement of Claims, dated 6/12/20, JAMS Arbitration REF. No. 1220065512) (Exh.
Oct 15, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 COURT IS ISSUING ONE TENTATIVE RULING FOR BOTH PETITIONS ON CALENDAR THIS DATE Tentative Rulings Defendants' Petition to vacate arbitration award is Denied. CCP section 1285. Plaintiffs' Petition to confirm arbitration award is Granted. CCP section 1285.
Oct 15, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
The motion to vacate arbitration is denied and the motion to confirm arbitration is granted.
Oct 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Even if the opposition and competing petition to vacate arbitration award was timely, Respondents have failed to show that the arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers As stated, the Court determined that the opposition and petition to vacate were untimely. If they were not, the Court would still confirm the arbitration award as set forth below.
Oct 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
HEARING ON PETITION TO/FOR VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD FILED BY JEFFREY S. SHULMAN, RHONA SHULMAN, THE SHULMAN FAMILY TRUST * TENTATIVE RULING: * The petition to vacate the arbitration award, filed by Jeffrey S. Shulman, Rhona Shulman, and the Shulman Family Trust dated March 16, 2006 (collectively, “Shulmans”), is denied. The petition to confirm the award, filed by Jefferson H. Mattox and Khwando Hadsombat Mattox (collectively, “Mattoxes”) is granted. The award is confirmed. (See CCP § 1285.2.)
Oct 07, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.