Court Opinion

ID: 9751028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:59:14.767249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:32.837854
License: Public Domain

RYLAARSDAM, J., Dissenting.
I disagree with my colleagues that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The appeal is from an arbitration award, where the parties purported to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal, first by way of their agreement to conduct binding arbitration “retaining their right of appeal,” and later by way of a nunc pro tunc order which purports to memorialize that something happened which in fact did not occur. Parties cannot by their agreement create appellate jurisdiction where none exists. (Old Republic Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 631, 639 [53 Cal.Rptr.2d 50].) Nunc pro tunc orders operate to correct the record to reflect what actually transpired; not to change the past or to record that something happened which did not. (Hamilton v. Laine (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 885, 890-891 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 407].)
Except for certain nunc pro tunc orders which are statutorily authorized, primarily in the Family Code (see, e.g., Fam. Code, § 2346), such orders are essentially limited to correcting clerical error. (Hamilton v. Laine, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pp. 890-891.) “The court can only make the record show that something was actually done at a previous time; a nunc pro tunc order cannot declare that something was done that was not done.” (7 Witkin, Cal. *723Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Judgment, § 63, p. 591, italics omitted, citing City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Peters) (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 766, 771 [70 Cal.Rptr. 826].) Such an order is not a time machine permitting courts to return to the past and retroactively change history.
Here the parties entered into an arbitration agreement. After the arbitration was completed, the nunc pro tunc order purported to transmogrify the agreement and the already completed proceedings into a general reference. This was not a situation where the parties had agreed to and did participate in a general reference but, through a clerical error, the record erroneously reflected an agreement to arbitrate. This was not merely a correction of the record but rather a retroactive change in the parties’ agreement and in the already completed proceedings. Contractual arbitrations and general references are not identical or even similar proceedings. I have attached an appendix which demonstrates major differences between the two types of proceedings. Because of these significant differences we must conclude that these are distinct proceedings. It is inappropriate to ignore the distinctions and to pretend there was a reference when the parties clearly intended to and did participate in an arbitration.
I would find the nunc pro tunc order to be invalid and ineffective. Therefore this appeal is from an arbitration award and hence not an appeal-able judgment.
*724Appendix
Comparison of Contractual Arbitration to General Reference
(Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure; Citations to the Practice Guide are to Knight et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Alternative Dispute Resolution (The Rutter Group 1997))
CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION
1. Contractual agreement (§ 1281)
2. Parties give arbitrator the power top decide their dispute (Practice. Guide, H 5:6)
3. Parties submit controversy to arbitrator (Practice Guide, ^ 5:6)
4. Parties determine qualifications of arbitrator (Practice Guide, ^ 5:24)
5. Parties choose and appoint arbitrator (§ 1280, subd. (d))
6. Parties determine number of arbitrators (Practice Guide, ^ 5:24)
7. No court file is opened upon submission of dispute to arbitrator
8. Arbitration may be private (Practice Guide, H 5:65)
*7259. Arbitrator not bound by law in reaching his award (Practice Guide, H 5:65)
10. Parties determine if rules of evidence apply (§ 1282.2, subd. (a)(2)(F)(d))
11. Arbitrator issues award to parties (§ 1283.4)
12. Parties may petition the court to confirm the award and enter a judgment (§ 1285)
13. Limited judicial review (§ 1286.2)
*724REFERENCE
1. Judicial Process (§ 639)
2. Scope of referee’s power determined by the court (§ 638)
3. Court orders reference (§ 639)
4. Statute determines qualifications of referee (§641)
5. Parties choose referee, court appoints (§ 640)
6. Court determines number of referees up to three (§ 640)
7. Court file is opened when stipulation or petition is presented to the court (Practice Guide, f 6:165)
8. Court may order that reference be open to the public and notice to the public is required (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 244.1(c) and (d); Practice Guide, ^ 6:213)
*7259. Reference must make finding based on laws of the court ordering reference (Practice Guide, ^ 6:209)
10. Rules of evidence apply (Evid. Code, § 300)
11. Referee submits a finding of fact and law stated separately to the court (§ 643)
12. Finding of the referee stands as the decision of the court (§ 644)
13. Review by appeal or by motion for new trial (§ 645)