BACKGROUND 

  Defendant Alan Salzman and Andrea Left were married on November 11, 2017.  Before they married, Salzman and Left entered into a written premarital agreement (the “Agreement”). (Ex. 1 to Densen Decl. (“Final Award”) at 1.)   The Agreement comprehensively set out the couple’s rights regarding their separate properties.  (Id. at 3-4.)   

The couple separated in October 2019, and Salzman filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in March 2020.  (Id. at 1.)  Left died in June 2020, while the petition was still pending.  (Id.)  

Several months after her death, Left’s Estate and her children (through her first husband, Andrew Left, collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued Salzman as well as several of his affiliated companies, VantagePoint Management, Inc., Son of Rio LLC, and 1275 Santa Cruz LLC (together with Salzman, the “Defendants”).   

On January 20, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration.  On February 25, 2021, the parties stipulated to arbitrate the action.  On April 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration with JAMS.  (Id. at 2.)  The demand asserted eight causes of action.   

In the first cause of action, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants breached a contract to pay Left, $2 million for design services on a property owned by Salzman located on Ridgedale Drive.  (Id. at 3.)   In the second and third causes of action, Plaintiffs alleged that Left’s children had a continued right to reside in the Ridgedale Property.  (Id. at 6)  In the fourth cause of action, Plaintiffs alleged as additional consideration for Left’s work designing Ridgedale, Salzman had promised to remediate mold damage at a property owned by Left at 9653 Wendover Drive.  (Id. at 3.)  Plaintiffs also asserted causes of action against Defendants for tortious interference with human remains, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with Left’s cremation.  Plaintiffs further brought a cause of action for declaratory relief addressing both the bodily remains claims and the property rights claims.   (Id. at 6.)   

On May 23, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to JAMS Rule 18 addressing Plaintiffs’ first four causes of action.  (Id.)  No opposition was timely filed.  (Id. at 2.)  On December 14, 2022, the Arbitrator issued an order granting Defendants’ motion for summary disposition on the first four causes of action.  (Id. at 4.)  On July 20, 2023, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their remaining causes of action with prejudice.  (Id. at 5.)  

On August 23, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.  (Id.)  On October 30, 2023, the Arbitrator issued the Final Award.  The Arbitrator found in favor of Defendants on all causes of action and ruled: (1) Plaintiffs shall take nothing from their causes of action, (2) Defendants are entitled to recover $165,346.55 in attorneys’ fees from Plaintiffs in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, and (3) Defendants are entitled to recover $12,724.51 in arbitrator fees and costs from Plaintiffs in accordance with JAMS Rules.  (Id. at 7.)   

This hearing is on Defendants’ petition to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 1285 et seq.  Defendants argue that the Final Award represents the final resolution of the arbitration and is a final and confirmable arbitration award under California law.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

“Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator's award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.”¿ (O'Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants¿(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.)¿ “Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: it may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.”¿ (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.¿(2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.)¿  

“It is well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.”¿ (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court¿(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.)¿ “Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may ‘review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator’s reasoning, nor may we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator’s legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award’s face.¿ Instead, we restrict our review to whether the award should be vacated under the grounds listed in section 1286.2.¿ [Citations.]’”¿ (Id.)¿   

Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.2, subdivision (a), states, in pertinent part:¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

“Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following:¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

(6) An arbitrator making the award¿ . . . (B) 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. . . .”¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

Limiting grounds for judicial review effectuates the parties’ agreement that the award be¿final. It also reflects that arbitrators ordinarily¿need not follow the law¿and may base their decisions on “broad principles of justice and equity,” “paths neither marked nor traceable by judicial review.” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase¿(1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11;¿Nogueiro v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals¿(1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1195.) 

Only where both (1) the arbitrator abused his or her discretion and (2) there was resulting prejudice, can a trial court properly vacate an arbitration award.¿ (SWAB Financial, LLC v. E*Trade Securities, LLC (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1198.)¿¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

The Final Award satisfies the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §1283.4 because it is in writing, signed by the Arbitrator and includes a determination of all the questions submitted to the arbitrator.  (Ex. 1 to Densen Decl. at 7.) 

Additionally, as required under the Agreement, the arbitration was conducted by JAMS pursuant to its rules.  (Id. at 1-2 (“In the event of any dispute arising out of the subject matter of the Agreement, the Parties agree to submit for resolution the disputed matter or claim before Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (‘JAMS’), Los Angeles pursuant to their rules then in effect.”))  Rule 25 of the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures states: “The Parties to an Arbitration under these Rules shall be deemed to have consented that judgment upon the Award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.” 

Accordingly, the Final Award represents the final resolution of the arbitration and is a final and confirmable arbitration award under California law. 

In addition, Defendants are entitled to post-judgment interest on the award of $178,071.06 in attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 685.010(a).  Section 685.010 provides that “[i]nterest accrues at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the principal amount of a money judgment remaining unsatisfied.” 

Defendants are also entitled to their fees and costs incurred in connection with this petition.  (See Stermer v. Modiano Constr. Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 264, 272 (awarding fees in connection with enforcing arbitration award).)  Costs are awarded by statute to the prevailing party in connection with a petition to confirm an arbitration award.  (Code Civ. Proc. §1293.2.)  Defendants’ counsel avers they will incur at least $4,212 in fees in connection with the petition.  Accordingly, the Court awards Defendants fees in the amount of $4,212.   

CONCLUSION