Filed 4/7/23 Ballou v. Verizon Wireless Services CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DE WANA BALLOU,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

VERIZON WIRELESS 

SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

 B324537

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 

 21STCV20672)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, William F. Fahey, Judge. Affirmed.

DeWana Ballou, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Goodman Law Firm and Brett B. Goodman for Defendant 

and Respondent.

________________________________________
2

Plaintiff and appellant DeWana Ballou (plaintiff) appeals 

from the judgment confirming an arbitration award against her 

and in favor of defendant and respondent Verizon Wireless 

Services, LLC, erroneously sued as Verizon Communications, Inc. 

(defendant). We affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

The parties and their arbitration agreement

Plaintiff contracted with defendant to receive cellular 

telephone services. When plaintiff upgraded her service plan 

with defendant in July 2011, she accepted the terms and 

conditions of defendant’s customer agreement. The customer 

agreement included a provision requiring resolution of any 

dispute between the parties either by arbitration or in small 

claims court.

1

1 The arbitration provision states in relevant part: “How 

Do I Resolve Disputes with Verizon Wireless? [¶] . . . [¶] YOU 

AND VERIZON WIRELESS BOTH AGREE TO RESOLVE 

DISPUTES ONLY BY ARBITRATION OR IN SMALL CLAIMS 

COURT. . . . WE ALSO BOTH AGREE THAT: [¶] (1) THE 

FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT APPLIES TO THIS 

AGREEMENT. EXCEPT FOR SMALL CLAIMS COURT CASES 

THAT QUALIFY, ANY DISPUTE THAT RESULTS FROM THIS 

AGREEMENT OR FROM THE SERVICES YOU RECEIVE 

FROM US (OR FROM ANY ADVERTISING FOR ANY 

PRODUCTS OR SERVICES) WILL BE RESOLVED BY ONE OR 

MORE NEUTRAL ARBITRATORS BEFORE THE AMERICAN 

ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (‘AAA’) OR BETTER BUSINESS 

BUREAU (‘BBB’). . . .”
3

Plaintiff’s first lawsuit and first arbitration

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against respondent on June 6, 2018. 

(Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BC709034 (the first lawsuit).) Her 

complaint alleged causes of action for general negligence and 

intentional tort arising out of defendant’s purported “cramming”

(the fraudulent practice of adding unauthorized charges to a 

customer’s phone bill) and subsequent disconnection of plaintiff’s 

wireless services in October 2017.

Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was 

granted in February 2019. An arbitration hearing was held on 

October 21, 2020. On November 11, 2020, the arbitrator issued a 

final award in favor of defendant. The award stated: “Claimant 

has failed to present sufficient credible evidence to meet her 

burden of establishing liability as alleged, against Respondent. 

All of Claimant’s claims are denied.” The award declared 

defendant the prevailing party and stated that “[t]his Award is in 

full settlement of all claims submitted to the Arbitration. All 

claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied.”

On December 17, 2020, the Los Angeles Superior Court 

granted defendant’s petition to confirm the arbitration award and 

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff’s second lawsuit and second arbitration

On June 4, 2021, plaintiff filed a second lawsuit against 

defendant. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. 21STCV20672 (the 

second lawsuit).) Her complaint asserted causes of action for 

intentional tort and negligence based on allegations that 

defendant breached its duty to secure her unlimited wireless data 

by cramming and then disconnecting her service in October 2017.

Defendant again moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims, 

and the trial court granted that motion on December 9, 2021. 
4

Plaintiff thereafter filed a demand for arbitration on January 3, 

2022. The parties agreed to appoint the same arbitrator who had 

presided over the first arbitration.

Defendant responded to the arbitration demand by filing a 

general denial and a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims based on 

the doctrine of res judicata. The arbitrator granted the motion 

dismiss and issued a final award in defendant’s favor on 

September 12, 2022. The arbitrator found “that both the First 

Arbitration and the Second Arbitration Demand are premised on 

identical allegations of cramming, overcharging and data loss, 

involving Claimant’s wireless services going back to 2011 and 

culminating in 2017.” The arbitrator further found that 

plaintiff’s first lawsuit “was dismissed after the Arbitration 

Award was rendered in the First Arbitration and found in favor 

of Respondent. For purposes of applying the doctrine of res 

judicata a dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final 

judgment on the merits, barring the entire cause of action.” The 

arbitrator found that plaintiff and defendant were parties to both 

the first and second arbitrations, and that plaintiff’s claims in the 

second arbitration were barred under the doctrine of res judicata. 

The arbitrator then granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the 

arbitration award and dismissed plaintiff’s second lawsuit with 

prejudice on November 10, 2022. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Applicable law and standard of review

The Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 10 et seq.) (FAA), 

which governs the parties’ arbitration agreement, provides 

limited grounds for judicial review of an arbitration award. 
5

These include circumstances in which the arbitrator acts in 

excess of his or her authority. (9 U.S.C. § 10(a).)2

Plaintiff contends the arbitrator acted in excess of her 

authority by concluding plaintiff’s claims in the second 

arbitration were identical to those asserted in the first 

arbitration and were therefore barred by the doctrine of res 

judicata. We review this contention de novo. (Advanced Micro 

Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 376, fn. 9.) While 

our review is de novo, the scope of that review is very narrow. 

(Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 775 (Moshonov).) As a 

general rule, a court cannot review an arbitrator’s decision for 

errors of fact or law. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 

Cal.4th 1, 11 (Moncharsh).)

The arbitrator’s application of res judicata is a legal 

determination that is not subject to judicial review. (Moncharsh,

supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 6, 11–12.) Even assuming the arbitrator 

erred in deciding this issue, the error would not be an act 

exceeding the arbitrator’s authority. “It is for the tribunal in 

which a claim of res judicata is made to pass on the validity of 

such a contention, including a determination of the effect of the 

prior judgment.” (Interinsurance Exchange of Auto. Club v. 

Bailes (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 830, 836; Durand v. Wilshire Ins. 

Co. (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 58, 60, 63 [when an issue of collateral 

estoppel is properly before an arbitrator, the arbitrator’s decision 

on the issue, even if erroneous, is not subject to judicial review].) 

2 Other grounds for vacating an arbitration award under 

the FAA are if the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or 

undue means or there was corruption or misconduct by the 

arbitrator. (9 U.S.C. § 10(a).)
6

Any erroneous decision by the arbitrator as to the preclusive 

effect of the first arbitration on plaintiff’s claims in the second 

arbitration is not an act in excess of her authority because the 

issues were within the scope of the controversy submitted to her. 

(Moshonov, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 775–776; Moncharsh, supra, 

3 Cal.4th at p. 28.)

Even assuming the arbitrator’s September 12, 2022 

decision was based on a misapplication of res judicata principles,

the arbitration award is binding. Judicial intervention to correct 

any purported error in that regard is unavailable. (Moncharsh,

supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 10.) The trial court did not err by 

confirming the September 12, 2022 arbitration award and 

dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s second lawsuit.
7

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Defendant shall recover its costs 

on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J.

We concur:

ASHMANN-GERST, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.