Court Opinion

ID: 9385674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 19:02:41.464422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:03.749550
License: Public Domain

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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                  B324537

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No.
           v.                                                     21STCV20672)

 VERIZON WIRELESS
 SERVICES, LLC,

           Defendant and Respondent.

     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.
          ________________________________________
      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

      1The 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’). . . .”

                               2
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.

                                 3
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.

                                  4
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).)

                                 5
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.

                                 6
                       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.

                               7