Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05760/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05760-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hisoft Technology International, Ltd
Defendant
Alana Kaselitz
Plaintiff
Melissa Kaselitz
Plaintiff
Tiak Koon Loh
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

A second defendant, Tiak Koon Loh, was dismissed from the above-titled action

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by stipulation of the parties filed December 6, 2014.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALANA KASELITZ, an individual; and

MELISSA KASELITZ, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

HISOFT TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

LTD., a Cayman Islands exempt company;

and TIAK KOON LOH, an individual,

Defendants. /

No. C-12-5760 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD;

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Before the Court are two motions: (1) plaintiffs Alana Kaselitz and Melissa Kaselitz’

“Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award in Part,” filed January 8, 2016; and (2) defendant hiSoft

Technology International, Ltd.’s “Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award,” filed January 8,

2016.1

 Both motions have been full briefed. Having read and considered the papers filed

in support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court deems the matters suitable for

determination on the parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing

scheduled for February 26, 2016, and rules as follows.

1. Plaintiffs have failed to show they are entitled to reconsideration of the Court’s 

order of February 15, 2013, by which order the Court granted defendant’s motion to compel

Case 3:12-cv-05760-MMC Document 65 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The parties’ arbitration agreement provides that any arbitration will be conducted

“under the arbitration rules set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280

through 1294.2.” (See Goldsmith Decl. Ex. 2 § 12.A.) Accordingly, as parties to an

arbitration agreement may, as here, agree to “abide by state rules of arbitration,” see Volt

Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 489 U.S. 468, 479 (1989), the Court

applies California law. The Court notes, however, that neither party has suggested any

conflict exists between federal and state law with respect to the issues presented by the

instant motions.

2

arbitration. Although, as plaintiffs point out, reconsideration may be based on a “change in

law,” see Civil L.R. 7-9(b) (setting forth grounds upon which party may base motion for

leave to file motion for reconsideration), plaintiffs’ citation to UFCW & Employers Benefit

Trust v. Sutter Health, 241 Cal. App. 4th 909 (2015),2 is misplaced, as plaintiffs fail to show

any such change addressed therein is applicable to the instant case.

2. Plaintiffs have failed to show the arbitrator exceeded his powers in requiring

plaintiffs, as the non-prevailing parties, to bear the cost of the arbitrator’s compensation. 

(See Goldsmith Decl. Ex. 2 § 12.B (arbitration agreement providing “arbitrator shall award

. . . costs to the prevailing party”).) Although the arbitration agreement requires defendant

to pay “any administrative or hearing fees charged by the arbitrator or AAA” (see id.), the

terms “administrative fees” and “hearing fees,” as defined in the applicable arbitration rules,

do not include the cost of the arbitrator’s compensation (see id. Ex. 21 at 33-34, 35); see

also Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd., 43 Cal. 4th 1179, 1184 (2008) (holding arbitrator’s

resolution of “any question of contract interpretation” is non-reviewable by court, subject to

exception that arbitrator may not award remedy “expressly forbidden by the arbitration

agreement or submission”).

3. Plaintiffs have failed to show the arbitrator erred in not addressing, upon his

finding plaintiffs were not entitled to receive the “full earnout payment” available under the

Amended Stock Purchase Agreement (“Amended SPA”), whether they nonetheless were

“entitled to [a] reduced earnout payment.” (See Pls.’ Mot. to Vacate at 2:13-17.) Although

an arbitrator must make a “determination of all the questions submitted” to him, see Cal.

Civ. Proc. Code § 1283.4, plaintiffs did not at any time prior to issuance of the arbitrator’s

Final Award argue to the arbitrator their entitlement to a reduced payment. (See Goldsmith

Case 3:12-cv-05760-MMC Document 65 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

To the extent plaintiffs, in the alternative, argue that the arbitrator did consider their

claim to a partial payout and erroneously denied it based on a misinterpretation of the

parties’ Amended SPA (see Pls.’ Opp. to Def.’s Mot. to Confirm at 17:26-27), such

argument is unavailing, as, even assuming the arbitrator so erred, such error is not grounds

to vacate the award. See Gueyffier, 43 Cal. 4th at 1184-85.

3

Decl. Ex. 11 (Claimants’ Trial Brief) at 1:10-24, 5:5-12, 6:26-7:9, 7:23-25, 8:19-28 (arguing

plaintiffs’ entitlement to full payment; making no argument in support of, or reference to,

entitlement to reduced payment)); (see id. Ex. 13 (Claimants’ Post-Arbitration Hearing

Brief) at 1:10-24, 4:1-6, 10:9-22, 29:22-30:5, 41:12-14, 51:1-52:2 (same)).3

4. As plaintiffs have failed to show the existence of any ground on which the

Arbitration Award should be vacated or corrected, defendant is entitled to an order

confirming said award in its entirety, and the Clerk will be directed to enter judgment

thereon. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1287.4 (providing “[i]f an award is confirmed,

judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith”).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the arbitration award is hereby DENIED;

2. Defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award is hereby GRANTED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05760-MMC Document 65 Filed 02/19/16 Page 3 of 3