Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02018/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DHL Express (USA) Inc.
Defendant
Deboraha Smith
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBORAHA SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-02018 TEH

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on Monday, November 14, 2005, on

Petitioner’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and for Rehearing. Having carefully

considered the parties’ written and oral arguments, and the record herein, the Petition is

DENIED and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

A. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff, Deboraha Smith (“Smith”), originally filed an action in San Mateo Superior

Court against her employer, Airborne Express, Inc. (“Airborne”). The parties subsequently

entered into a “Post-Dispute Agreement to Arbitrate.” Pursuant to this agreement, the

parties agreed to have the Hon. Cecily Bond of JAMS (a retired Sacramento County

Superior Court judge) preside over an arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims. After conducting

discovery, the parties further agreed to submit a pre-arbitration summary judgment motion

to Judge Bond. 
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Airborne merged with DHL, and DHL is the only surviving operating entity. 

2

On January 27, 2005, Judge Bond granted summary judgment for Airborne. On

May 9, 2005, Smith filed the instant Petition to Vacate a Contractual Arbitration Award in

San Francisco Superior Court. Thereafter, the Defendant, now denominated as DHL

Express (USA), Inc. (“DHL”),1 removed the action to this Court on grounds of diversity

jurisdiction. The case is currently before the Court on Smith’s petition to vacate Judge

Bond’s award in favor of Airborne/DHL. Notably, Smith failed to file any reply papers in

this matter.

B. DISCUSSION

Smith’s Petition to Vacate asserts that the Arbitrator’s award should be vacated

under California Code of Civil Procedure §1286.2. This provision narrowly limits parties

to four potential grounds for attacking an arbitration award, and unless one of these four

grounds is established, the award is immune from judicial review. Moncharsh v. Heily &

Blase, 3 Cal. 4th 1, 12-1, 27-28 (1992). Smith invokes the fourth ground – that the

arbitrator “refused to hear or consider evidence material to the controversy.” Calif. Code

of Civil Procedure § 1286.2(e).

The record, however, plainly fails to support this assertion. First, Judge Bond’s

ruling itself states that she has “read and considered all points and authorities, declarations

and other materials submitted in support and in opposition to said Motion” and has

“considered the arguments of counsel.” See McInerney Decl., Exh. I at 1. Smith does not

dispute that Judge Bond heard oral argument from the parties for over one hour by

telephone.

Second, Smith fails to establish that Judge Bond refused to hear any specific item

of evidence. Smith argues at length that Judge Bond “obviously disregarded” Smith’s

“extensive and exhaustive deposition testimony and her Declaration in opposition to said

Motion for Summary Judgment” because, in Smith’s view, this evidence warranted a

different result in her underlying case. See e.g. Smith’s Mem. in Support of Petition to
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Vacate Arbitration Award at 7-10. The record, however, is bereft of any basis for finding

that Judge Bond refused to hear any evidence material to the controversy. Rather, Judge

Smith’s ruling indicates that she considered the evidence but rejected Smith’s position on

the merits. Needless to say, rejecting evidence is not the same as refusing to consider it. 

While Smith may vigorously disagree with Judge Bond’s decision, this is plainly not

grounds for reviewing or vacating the award. Morris v. Zuckerman, 69 Cal. 2d 686, 691

(1968) (“‘[n]either the merits of the controversy. . . nor the sufficiency of the evidence to

support the arbitrator’s award are matters for judicial review”). 

 Petitioner also argues that Judge Bond erroneously concluded that Smith 

conceded her tenth cause of action in her underlying complaint. Even if this were true,

which seems highly unlikely based on the record before the Court, it would not be grounds

for vacating the award since this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the substance

of the award for error. Moncharsh, 3 Cal. 4th at 11; Morris, 69 Cal. 2d at 691. 

In sum, Smith’s petition is essentially an attempt to reargue the merits of the

underlying case. As such, Smith has failed to establish any basis for vacating the

Arbitrator’s award under California Civil Code § 1286.2. Accordingly, the petition must

denied. 

C. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY

ORDERED that Smith’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and for Rehearing is

DENIED, and this case is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2005 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE