1

Filed 3/28/23 Coachella Valley C RE v. Coachella G reen CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

COACHELLA VALLEY CRE, INC. et al.,
Plaintiff s and Appellants,

v. COACHELLA GREEN, LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents. E077704 (Super. Ct. No. PSC1804313)
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kira L. Klatchko, Judge.
Affirmed

. McCune Wright Arevalo, Richard D. McCune, Michele M. Vercoski and Tuan Q. Nguyen, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Michelman & Robinson and David A. DeJute, for Defendants and Respondents.2 I.
INTRODUCTION Coachella Valley CRE, Inc. and Coachella Development III, LLC (appellants) moved the trial court to stay their arbitration with respondent Coachella Green, LLC, on the ground that the arbitrator did not have the requisite experience required by the parties ’ arbitration agreement . After the trial court denied the motion, the arbitrator died, and a new one was appointed

— with appellants’ approval. The arbitration proceedings continued with that arbitrator for almost a year without appellants objecting to his appointment, and resulted in an award that the trial court confirmed. Appellants now appeal on the ground that the first arbitrator was appointed against their will and in violation of the parties’ arbitration agreement. We conclude the appointment of t he second arbitrato r rendered harmless any error with the appointment of
the first arbitrator. We therefore affirm.
II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties entered into a purchase agreement for a parcel of vacant land in Coachella Valley to cultivate and manufacture commercial cannabis , but appellants failed to timely fund escrow, so the sale was canceled. The purchase agreement provided that any dispute related to the sale would be resolved in arbitration by an arbit rator who “ shall be an impartial real estate broker with a least 5 years of full time experience in both the
area where the property is located and the type of real estate that is the subject of this3

agreement .” In appellants’ view, this provision means t hat any appointed arbitrator ha d to be a real estate agent with at least five years of experience in selling land in Coachella Valley zoned for cannabis cultivation and manufacturing. After appellants failed to fund escrow, they sued in the superior court

. 1 Respondent moved to stay the lawsuit on the ground that it could render the arbitration

moot. Around the same time, respondent filed a claim for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the AAA). Shortly afterward, the AAA sent the par ties a list of
10 proposed arbitrators and asked them to jointly pick one. In their opposition to respondent’s motion to stay , appellants urged the trial court to stay the arbitration because none of the AAA’s proposed arbitrator s had the requisite experie nce required by the parties’ agreement. In February 2019, t he trial court rejected appellants’ argument, granted respondent’s motion , and stayed the case until the
arbitration concluded. On April 10, 2019 , t he AAA informed the parties that th ey had to choose an arbitrator from the proposed list by the close of business two days later and that the arbitration would proceed in the absence of any party. The parties stipulated to extend
their arbitrator selection , but a ppellants eventually told the AAA they were withdrawing from the arbitration because the AAA could not provide an arbitrator with the requisite experience.

1 The substance of appellants’ lawsuit is not relevant to the issues on appeal.4

The AAA nonetheless appointed retired J udge Steven Cohen over appellants’ objection in April 2019 . Judge Cohen did not have five years of experience as a real estate broker selling property in Coachella Valley zoned for cannabis cultivation and manufacturing. Appellants therefore moved to amend their complaint 2 and for a stay of the arbitration on the ground that Judge Cohen’s ap pointment violated the parties’ agreement. The trial court denied the motion. Appellants then moved for a second time to amend their complaint and to stay the
arbitration

. 3 The trial court den ied the motion in July 2019 , and t he arbitration proceeded with Judge Cohen as arbitrator. Almost a year later, in May 2020, the AAA informed the parties that Judge Cohen
had died , and proposed that retired J udge James Steele be appointed as arbitrator. About a week later, respondent’s counsel asked ap pellants’ counsel whether they agreed to Judge Steele’s appointment. Appellants’ counsel confirmed that they did, and asked respondent’s counsel to tell the AAA that the parties agreed to Judge Steele’s appointment. Judge Steele was then appointed toward the end of May 2020.
After multiple days of evidentiary hearings, Judge Steele issued an award in respondent’s favor in October 2020 . The trial court later confirmed the award and entered judgment for respondent. Appellants timely appealed.

2 The substance of appellants’ proposed amendment is not relevant to the issues on appeal.

3 The substance of appellants’ second proposed amendment is not relevant to the issues on appeal.5 III.
DISCUS SION Appellants appeal the trial court’s order s denying their motions to stay the arbitration and to amend their complaint

. Appellants’ sole argument is that the AAA improperly appointed Judge Cohen in violation of the parties’ arbitration agreement and thus the trial court erroneously declined to stay the arbitration

. 4 In their opening brief, however, appellants do not mention that Judge Cohen died
and Judge Steele was appointed , nor did they file a reply brief. They also neglect to mention that they e xpressly agreed to Judge Steele’s appointment with respondent’s counsel and asked counsel to tell AAA that they agreed to his appointment. We need not discuss whether the AAA properly appointed Judge Cohen. Even if
he was improperly appointed , any error was harmless because Judge Steele took over the arbitration after Judge Cohen’s death and presided over the case until issuing a final
award months later

. Judge Cohen’s death and Judge Steele’s agreed

- on appointment thu s rendered harmless any purported error caused by Judge Cohen’s appointment and the trial
court’s corresponding refusal to stay the arbitration

. We therefore affirm the judgment. (See Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125 [appellant
bears burd en of proving prejudicial error].)

4 Respondent argues appellants failed to preserve the issue for ap pellate review. We assume without deciding that appellants properly preserved the issue for appellate review.6 IV.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Respondent s may recover its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON Acting P. J.
We concur:

SLOUGH J.

RAPHAEL J.