Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/petition-to-vacate-or-alter-arbitration-award-405
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 02:12:49
Document Index: 512933069

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1286', '§ 1286', '§ 1285', '§ 1286', '§ 1286', '§ 1286', '§ 1284', '§1286', '§1285', '§1286', '§ 1286', '§ 1286', '§ 1286', '§452', '§1286', '§1286', '§ 1285', '§ 1285', '§1286']

How to Prepare a Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award
California public policy favors arbitration as “a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution.” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9.) By enacting the California Arbitration Act (CAA), the Legislature expressed “its strong support for private arbitration and the finality of arbitral awards.” (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 32.) “To support this policy and encourage parties to settle their disputes through arbitration, it is essential that arbitration judgments be both binding and final. Thus, as a general rule, courts will indulge every reasonable intendment to give effect to arbitration proceedings.” (A.M. Classic Const., Inc. v. Tri-Build Development Co. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1477-1478.)
“It is thus well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.... [W]ith limited exceptions... an arbitrator’s decision is not generally reviewable for errors of fact or law, whether or not such error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice to the parties. Judicial review of private arbitration awards is ordinarily limited to the statutory grounds for vacating an award (Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.2) and correcting an award (Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.6).” (SunLine Transit Agency v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1277 (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 292, 302-303; Reed v. Mutual Service Corp. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1365.)
If the court does not vacate or correct an arbitration award, “the court must confirm the award.” (Law Offices of David S. Karton v. Segreto (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.)
“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1285.)
The court shall vacate an arbitration award if it determines any of the following:
An arbitrator making the award either: failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision.
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 1286.2(a).)
The party asserting a statutory basis for vacating an arbitration award bears the burden of establishing facts supporting their position. (Reed v. Mutual Service Corp. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1370-1371.) Without evidence, the court cannot determine as a matter of fact that any impropriety occurred at the arbitration. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 568, 573; Creative Plastering, Inc. v. Hedley Builders, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1662, 1665.)
A party seeking to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that it was obtained through corruption, fraud, or other unfair means must satisfy a three-part test:
The movant must establish the fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
The fraud must not have been discoverable upon the exercise of due diligence prior to or during the arbitration.
The person seeking to vacate the award must demonstrate that the fraud materially related to an issue in the arbitration.
(Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 830.)
An arbitrator “must disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed arbitrator would be able to be impartial.” (Guseinov v. Burns (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 944, 956.) “Whether an award is tainted by bias because an arbitrator failed to disclose a particular relationship is a factual determination made by the court reviewing the award. The party claiming bias bears the burden of establishing facts supporting its position.” (Id. at p. 957.)
“When a party contends it was substantially prejudiced by the arbitrator's exclusion of material evidence, a court should generally consider prejudice before materiality.” (Epic Medical Management, LLC v. Paquette (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 504, 518.) “To find substantial prejudice, the court must first accept the arbitrator's theory and conclude the arbitrator might well have made a different award had the evidence been allowed.” (Id.)
Correcting the Reward
“[T]he court, unless it vacates the award pursuant to Section 1286.2, shall correct the award and confirm it as corrected if the court determines that:
The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.”
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 1286.6.)
“It is well settled that arbitrators do not exceed their powers merely because they assign an erroneous reason for their decisions.” (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at 28.) Instead, “[a]rbitrators may exceed their powers by issuing an award that violates a party’s unwaivable statutory rights or that contravenes an explicit legislative expression of public policy.” (Ling v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1252.) “Absent a clear expression of illegality or public policy undermining this strong presumption in favor of private arbitration, an arbitral award should ordinarily stand immune from judicial scrutiny.” (Id.)
A petition or response requesting that the award be corrected has been duly served and filed and: all petitioners and respondents are before the court; or all petitioners and respondents have been given reasonable notice that the court will be requested at the hearing to vacate the award or that the court on its own motion has determined to vacate the award and all petitioners and respondents have been given an opportunity to show why the award should not be vacated.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.4.)
“If [the party who lost in the arbitration does] not serve and file a petition to vacate or a response to [a] petition to confirm within the 100–day period from the date of service of the award... the award must be treated as final.” (Klubnikin v. California Fair Plan Assn. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 393, 398.)
An arbitrator may “correct the award upon any of the grounds set forth in subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 1286.6 not later than 30 days after service of a signed copy of the award on the applicant.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1284.) “Under the statutory grounds for correction recognized in section 1284, the arbitrator may not reconsider the merits of the original award and make a new award under the guise of correction of the award.” (Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corporation (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1, 14.) “[A]n arbitrator has no power to use the incremental award process to correct or modify the terms of an original award.” (Roehl v. Ritchie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 338, 351.)
Useful Rulings on Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award
JAMES ALAMILLO VS COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
ALAMILLO v. COAST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY CASE NO.: VS028768 HEARING: 01/04/18 #10 TENTATIVE ORDER Claimant’s petition to correct contractual arbitration award is DENIED. CCP §1286.6. Opposing Party to give notice. “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award.” (CCP §1285.) The California Supreme Court has “[...
..submitted….” (CCP §1286.6(b).) “It is well settled that arbitrators do not exceed their powers merely because they assign an erroneous reason for their decisions.” (Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th at 28.) Instead, “[arbitrators may exceed their powers by issuing an award that violates a party’s unwaivable statutory rights or that contravenes an explicit legislative expression of public policy.” (Lin...
Leslie Miretti v. Apache Building and Framing Inc.
PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; MOTION IN OPPOSITION THERETO AND FOR ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD, FOR POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEYS' FEES TENTATIVE RULING: The Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is DENIED. The Motion for Order Confirming Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Respondent's request for post- judgment interest is GRANTED. Respondent's request for attorneys' fees is DENIED...
..s counsel is unable to contact Petitioner’s counsel prior to the hearing, Respondent’s counsel shall appear at the hearing, in person or by CourtCall, in the event Petitioner’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 2.9. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes a technical deficiency in the Petition. "A petition [to confirm, correct, or vacate an arbitration award...
AMRAM HAVIVY ET AL VS KAISER PERMANENTE
amram havivy , et al., Plaintiffs, vs. kaiser permanente , et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC555158 Hearing Date: May 9, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. [Tentative] Order RE: Petition to vacate contractual arbitration award MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff and petitioner Amram Havivy (self-represented) RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants and respondents Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals...
..The suit was filed by the parents of Tiffany Havivy, who tragically died from a form of brain cancer in June 2013, at the age of seven. On August 18, 2014, plaintiffs Amram Havivy and Maria Elena Ornelas (Tiffany Havivy’s parents) filed a complaint against defendants Kaiser Permanente, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Kaiser Permanente Glen...
PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRAL AWARD IS DENIED; PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRAL AWARD IS GRANTED. Background On August 23, 2016, Plaintiffs Susan Abusamra-Pixler (hereinafter “Susan”) and Charles Pixler (hereinafter “Charles”) filed the instant action against Defendants U-Haul International, Inc; Government Employees Insurance Company; Geico General Insurance Company; Dawn M. Grant Insurance Services,...
.., 2017, the Court granted Defendant U-Haul International, Inc.’s (hereinafter “Defendant”) motion to compel arbitration and stay action pending the completion of arbitration. On October 24, 2019, the Arbitrator, issued a Final Award. On December 6, 2019, Defendant filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. In response, on December 11, 2019, Plaintiff Susan filed her opposing Petition to Vacat...
Stephen Penner vs Luigi Germani
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Strike/Request for Judicial Notice 1. Motion to Strike Rejection of Award and Request for Trial after Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration 2. Petition to Vacate Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award 3. Second Petition to Vacate Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award 4. Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award ...
..cordingly. BACKGROUND This is an action by attorney Stephen Penner to recover disputed attorney fees from his client, Luigi Germani. Mr. Penner represented Mr. Germani in connection with a conservatorship matter. The dollar amount at issue is approximately $26,267.00. Pursuant to the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (Business & Professions Code Se...
Paula Mueller vs Renee Nordstrand
Nature of Proceedings: Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award/Confirm Arbitration Award Case: Paula Mueller, etc., v. Renee J. Nordstrand, Case No. 1439732 (Judge Sterne) Hearing Date: March 17, 2014 Motion: Hearing on Petition to Vacate Fee Arbitration Award Tentative Ruling: For the reasons set forth herein, the petition of Paula Mueller to vacate the arbitration award dated Decem...
..est for Denial, exhibit 1.) The arbitration was heard on November 23, 2013, before a panel of three arbitrators. (Arbitration Award, p. 1.) At the arbitration, Mueller and Nordstrand confirmed their prior written election for binding arbitration. (Ibid.) (Note: All statements herein of the underlying facts of the arbitration are taken from the Arbitration Award. Neither party has submitted any dec...
Recent Rulings on Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award
A. James Robertson Ii (17)
Ernest H. Goldsmith (27)
Harold E. Kahn (32)
James E. Blancarte Or Serena R. Murillo (8)
Loretta Giorgi (8)
WESTADAMS, LLC, ET AL. VS FAME ASSISTANCE CORPORATION
On December 26, 2019, Petitioners filed a reply titled “response to cross-petition to vacate arbitration award and request that arbitration award be confirmed and judgment entered.” On December 30, 2019, Respondents filed a verified cross-complaint to vacate arbitration award.
HOME CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS CORP., ET AL. VS MARY ANN ROBERT HUTCHISON, ET AL.
PETITION TO CORRECT OR VACATE ARBITRATION AWARDD (CCP § 1286.6) TENTATIVE RULING: Petition of Home Construction Solutions Corporation to Correct or Vacate Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 7, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. ANALYSIS: Petitioner Home Construction Services Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to correct or vacate arbitration award against Respondents Ben Davis and Mary Ann Hutchinson (“Respondents”) on April 4, 2019.
ROBERT LANSING, ET AL. VS CSL 13 ALYSON POURAT, ET AL.
PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD (CCP § 1286.4) TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool and Spa, Inc.’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein.
PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD (CCP § 1286.4) TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioners Robert Lansing and Complete Pool and Spa, Inc.’s Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner must file and serve supplemental papers correcting the deficiencies identified herein.
WILLIAM C PRICE VS REGINA MCPHAIL
On August 29, 2019, Respondent filed a Case to Vacate Arbitration, in pro per, which appears to be a petition to vacate the arbitration award. However, this was not scheduled for hearing and Respondent did not file a proof of service demonstrating it was properly served on Petitioner. The matter was initially set for hearing for October 15, 2019, but was continued to January 9, 2020. On December 20, 2019, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration.
Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award On February 25, 2020, in the Lead Case, Petitioner filed a response to Respondent’s petition to vacate arbitration award that was filed in the Vacate Case. In its March 6, 2020 minute order, with respect to the motion to confirm arbitration award, the Court ordered Respondent to file a motion to vacate arbitration award due to the Court’s electronic filing system not showing a motion to vacate arbitration award being filed with respect to the Lead Case.
JP-RICHARDSON, LLC VS PACIFIC OAK SOR RICHARSON PORTFOLIO JV, LLC
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award There are two matters before the Court: (1) a Verified Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award (“Motion 1”), filed by JP-Richardson, LLC (“JP”) on 12/6/19, which is Denied; and (2) a Cross-Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Motion 2”), filed by Pacific Oak SOR Richardson Portfolio JV, LLC f/k/a KBS SOR Richardson Portfolio, LLC (“KBS”) on 1/16/20, which is Granted.
JOHN C LABONTY JR VS MOMAGER INC ET AL
Request for Judicial Notice The court takes judicial notice of (1) the executed license agreement dated May 9, 2012, (2) the final award in JAMS Arbitration No. 1210033201 dated January 14, 2019, and (3) the July 5, 2019, final ruling on submitted Motions to Confirm/Vacate Arbitration Award, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 614374. Evidence Code §§452, 453.
The court takes judicial notice of: (1) the license agreement dated May 9, 2012, (2) the January 14, 2019 Final Award in JAMS Arbitration No. 1210033201 and (3) the July 5, 2019 Final Ruling on Submitted Motions to Confirm/Vacate Arbitration Award, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 614374. Objections to Evidence Plaintiff Ellen Suzuki’s objections to evidence are all OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s objection to new evidence submitted on reply is SUSTAINED.
HO V. NGUYEN
Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award The motion of the plaintiff to vacate the arbitrator’s award is DENIED. The motion to vacate is based on the basic ground that the original order granting the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was wrong.
JUDITH RUGGIERO V. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS
The petition to vacate arbitration award is DENIED.
On February 25, 2020, Petitioner filed a response to Respondent’s petition to vacate arbitration award. A review of the Court’s future hearing dates does not indicate a set hearing date for June 5, 2020 with respect to Respondent’s petition to vacate. The Court, however, finds it logistically inefficient to rule on Petitioner’s motion while Respondent’s petition remains outstanding due to the risk of inconsistent rulings.
THOMAS ROCHA, ET AL. V. U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
Motion: Plaintiffs’ petition to vacate arbitration award Tentative Ruling: To deny Plaintiffs’ petition to vacate the final arbitration award. (Code Civ. Proc. §1286.2.) To confirm the award. (Code Civ. Proc. §1286.)
JASKARAN SIHOTA V. BHAJAN SIHOTA
Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award Tentative Ruling: To grant plaintiffs’ motion to confirm and to deny defendants’ motion to vacate. Plaintiffs are directed to submit to this court, within 5 days of service of the minute order, a proposed judgment consistent with the court's order. Explanation: I. Motion to Confirm Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm the award.
BROWNHOUSE CONSTRUCTION VS JOSEPH HAKIMPOUR
VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD (CCP § 1285) TENTATIVE RULING: Petitioner Brownhouse Construction’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is CONTINUED to JULY 20, 2020 at 10:30 am in Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse. At least 16 court days prior to the hearing, Respondent is to file and serve a supplemental brief solely addressing Petitioner’s contention that he was not given an opportunity to review and respond to the documents supporting the damages amount.
JAMES SCOTT VS JAMIE C BARLETT
(1) MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD by plaintiff James Scott is GRANTED. Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The court notes this motion was not scheduled by plaintiff. (See, San Diego Superior Court Rule 2.1.19) The court, in its discretion, has considered the Motion. Under the California Arbitration Act, the court does not conduct an independent review of an arbitration award for error of law.
KBS SOR RICHARDSON PORTFOLIO JV, LLC VS JP - RICHARDSON, LLC
Respondent explains that “before this action was filed, [Respondent] filed a Verified Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award in Orange County, California” and asserts that “under the First Filed Rule, this action should not proceed.” (Id. at p. 1:2-6.)
On August 29, 2019, Respondent filed a “Case to Vacate Arbitration”). The Petition was initially set for hearing on October 15, 2019, then continued prior to the hearing to January 9, 2020. On December 20, 2019, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration. Legal Standard Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.
In response, on December 11, 2019, Plaintiff Susan filed her opposing Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff Charles filed a Joinder in Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Legal Standard Per CCP § 1285, “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.”
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY VS ALLIANCE ENERGY COMPANY ET
MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD Date: 12/20/19 Case: Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Alliance Energy Company, et al. (BC 644365) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Alliance Energy Company’s and Tzuu Pien Chiang’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award is DENIED. Defendant seek relief pursuant to statutory authority under which the Court may vacate an arbitration award, which this Court has already declined to do previously.
ALBRIGHT, DON VS. MODESTO LLC
a) Defendant CF Modesto LLC dba Modesto Post Acute Center’s Petition to Compel Arbitration and Stay Further Proceedings – GRANTED; b) Plaintiff’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award – DENIED. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that these competing petitions involve identical arguments and could likely have been resolved in a single petition to confirm with corresponding response pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §1286 et seq.
DAVE BISCHOF VS IAN FREEBAIRN-SMITH
On March 4, 2019, Petitioner filed a Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. On May 10, 2019, this Court granted the petition, finding that the entire contract that was the basis for the mechanic’s lien was unenforceable on the basis of unconscionability. (5/10/19 Minute Order.) On September 25, 2019, a non-jury trial took place. Respondent was not present. (9/25/19 Minute Order.)
CALIFORNIA CUSTOM CREATIONS, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS. JOHN T. WACASTER AS TRUSTEE OF THE WACASTER JOINT TRUST DATED OCTOBER 5, 2016
Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award DEF John Wacaster; DEF Christine Wacaster 2. Motion – Other (Confirm Arbitration Award) Defendants John Wacaster’s and Christine Wacaster’s petition to confirm the arbitration award dated July 3, 2019 is GRANTED. Plaintiff California Custom Creations, Inc.’s petition to vacate said award is DENIED. “[I]t is the general rule that, with narrow exceptions, an arbitrator’s decision cannot be reviewed for errors of fact or law.” (See Moncharsh v.
R MARIA ARCURI VS CBRE INC
SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award Moving Party: Plaintiff R Maria Arcuri Resp. Party: Defendant CBRE, Inc. (2) Request to Confirm Arbitration Award Moving Party: Defendant CBRE, Inc. Resp. Party: Plaintiff R Maria Arcuri Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award is DENIED. Defendant’s request to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED.