Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCP04575, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP04575    Hearing Date: April 24, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                          Wednesday, April 24, 2024 

Case Name:                             McCulloch Builders, Inc. v. Johanna Schwarzenberger, et al.   

Case No.:                                23STCP04575 

Motion:                                   Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award  

Moving Party:                         Petitioner McCulloch Builders, Inc.   

Responding Party:                   Defendants Johanna Schwarzenberger and Rob De Vrij

Notice:                                     OK

Tentative Ruling:                    The Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award filed by Petitioner McCulloch Builders, Inc. is DENIED.

 _____________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND 

On December 20, 2023, Petitioner McCulloch Builders, Inc. filed its Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Leslie Steven Marks of the American Arbitration Association on November 15, 2023.  Petitioner filed its Memorandum of Points & Authorities on January 2, 2024.  The Petition requests that the Court vacate the award, and order a new arbitration to take place on the basis that the award was procured through undue means causing substantial prejudice to Petitioner and the Arbitrator exceeded her powers.   

On January 19, 2024, Respondents Johanna Schwarzenberger and Rob De Vrij filed their opposition. 

No reply has been filed as of April 19, 2024.

ANALYSIS 

I.                   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 of Civil Procedure section 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:¿ 

¿ 

(1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.¿ 

(2) There was corruption in any of the arbitrators.¿ 

(3) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.¿ 

(4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.¿ 

(5) The rights of the parties were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title.¿ 

(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. . . .¿ 

¿ 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a).)¿ 

¿ 

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.)¿ 

II.        Discussion

Petitioner petitions this Court to vacate the award issued by Arbitrator Leslie Steven Marks of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on November 15, 2023.  Petitioner contends the award should be vacated for two reasons.  First, Petitioner contends that the Arbitrator exceeded her powers in denying Petitioner’s request for oral argument.  Second, Petitioner contends the award was procured through fraud or other undue means since the matter consisted of more than 500 pages of documents submitted to the Arbitrator.

In opposition, Respondents make numerous arguments including: (1) there is no evidence that the award was procured through undue means or caused substantial prejudice to Petitioner; (2) AAA rules provides disputes in cases such as this matter shall be resolved by submission of documents; (3) the Arbitrator followed the rules of the AAA; and (4) the total page count was 118 pages.

Here, Petitioner’s petition is without merit. 

Petitioner’s first argument that the Arbitrator exceeded her powers in denying Petitioner’s request for oral argument is meritless. The final award issued by the Arbitrator on November 15 was administered under the AAA Fast Track Procedures of the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules.  (Declaration of David K. Dorenfeld; ¶ 11; Ex. “I.”)  Petitioner does not provide any evidence that the Arbitrator exceeded her powers in accordance with the Rules of the AAA.  Further, by not filing a reply, Petitioner has failed to address Respondent’s argument that the Rules of the AAA require cases involving disputes of less than $25,000 to be resolved by submission of documents and that the arbitrator shall decide whether a formal hearing, via telephone or in person is necessary. 

Next, Petitioner’s second argument that the award was procured through fraud or other undue means since the matter consisted of more than 500 pages of documents submitted to the Arbitrator is meritless.  Petitioner submits the declaration of its attorney, David K. Dorenfeld, to support the voluminous documentation argument, however, Dorenfeld’s declaration does not actually demonstrate such because the attached email exhibits merely contain a download link. Also, Petitioner does not address Respondents’ argument that the total page count was actually 118 pages.

II.        Conclusion 

Accordingly, the Petition to Vacate or Alter Arbitration Award filed by Petitioner McCulloch Builders, Inc. is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.