Source: https://www.wolfflaw.com/the-power-or-jurisdiction-of-arbitrators-is-limited-by-the-writt.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:02:12+00:00

Document:
THE POWER OR JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATORS IS LIMITED BY THE WRITTEN CONSENT OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION, AND THE ABILITY OF ARBITRATORS TO DETERMINE THEIR JURISDICTION.
It is elementary that arbitration is a matter of contract, and if the parties have not agreed to arbitrate a particular matter, it may not be submitted to binding arbitration.
Code Civil Proc. § 1281.2; See also 9. U.S.C. §§ 2 & 3.
The scope of the arbitration, or the matters which may be decided by the arbitrators, is also determined by the specific language in the written agreement of the parties.
United Teachers of L.A. v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist.(2012) 54 Cal. 4th 504, 516.
If the arbitrators decide an issue or questions which are not made arbitrable by the Agreement between the parties to the arbitration, their award may be vacated by the Court on the grounds that the arbitrators “exceeded their powers”. Code Civil Proc. § 1286.2(4).
Glassman v. McNab (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1593, 1598.
The Law, under Federal and State arbitration statutes, is that the Court must determine whether or not a particular dispute is arbitrable, and whether that dispute should be ordered to arbitration.
Code Civil Proc. Code § 1281.2; 9 U.S.C. § 2.
City of L.A. v. Superior Court (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 1086, 1096.
Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc. (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 227, 239-240; Malone v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1551, 1560; Murphy v. Check 'N Go of Cal., Inc. (1st Dist. 2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 138, 144.
First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944-46, 115 S. Ct. 1920, 1924-25.
Gilbert St. Developers, LLC v. La Quinta Homes (2009) LLC, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1185, 1192-94.
Gilbert St. Developers, LLC v. La Quinta Homes, LLC, supra, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 1186; Baker v. Osborne Dev. Corp. (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 884, 895-96..
Yahoo! Inc. v. Iversen (N.D. Cal. 2011) 836 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1011-12; Roling v. E*Trade Sec. (N.D. Cal. 2012) LLC, 860 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1042.
Universal Prot. Serv., LP v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 697, 702-03.
Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc. (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 227, 239-240; Malone v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1551, 1560; Murphy v. Check 'N Go of Cal., Inc. (1st Dist. 2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 138, 144; First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944-46, 115 S. Ct. 1920, 1924-25.
Thus, the parties may delegate to the arbitrators the power for the arbitrators - rather than the Court - to determine their own power or “jurisdiction” by using contract terms expressly giving the arbitrators such power, or by “incorporating by reference” into their arbitration agreement association arbitration rules which expressly give the arbitrators this power, if they do this “clearly” and so that their intent is “unmistakable”.
Gilbert St. Developers, LLC v. La Quinta Homes LLC (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 1185, 1192-94.
Gilbert St. Developers, LLC v. La Quinta Homes, LLC, supra, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 1186; Baker v. Osborne Dev. Corp. (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 884, 895-96; Universal Prot. Serv., LP v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal. App. 4th 697, 702-703; Yahoo! Inc. v. Iversen (N.D. Cal. 2011) 836 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1011-12; Roling v. E*Trade Sec. (N.D. Cal. 2012) LLC, 860 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1042.
Such documents and such contract terms incorporated by reference into an arbitration contract or agreement must be known or easily available to the parties at the time of the alleged incorporation by reference.
Finally, even if the arbitrators are given power to determine their own jurisdiction initially, the Court may review their exercise of such power after an award is entered, on a timely or immediate Petition to Correct or Vacate an arbitration award, where the Court can decide whether the arbitrators exceeded their powers under the arbitration agreement or issued an award in excess of the scope of their powers under that arbitration agreement. Code Civil Proc. 1286.2(a)(4); 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4).
N.B. The contents of this Article do not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship, and you may NOT rely on it without seeking legal advice regarding your particular, unique situation from a competent Business lawyer or Arbitration attorney. Please also note that factual situations vary, and statutes, regulations and case law are frequently changing and evolving, and these materials thus also may be or become outdated or incorrect.
For further information on this topic and how the current law may apply to your particular contract, project or issues, Contact Us via email, phone (415)788-1881 or visit our website at www.wolfflaw.com for other contract information.
© 2017, George Wolff , all rights reserved.

References: § 1281
 v. 
 § 1286
 v. 
 § 1281
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10