Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2020-01168090, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Pltf. Erin  Kantor, Walter  Kantor
Motion for Attorney Fees

Petitioners Erin Kantor’s and Walter Kantor’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is denied.

The underlying case, filed in 2015 by Petitioners was one for quiet title related to the boundary line dispute between the litigants’ two properties.  The Kantors dismissed their Complaint on 12/13/16.  On 12/21/16, the terms of the parties’ settlement were agreed upon at the deposition of Luis Martinez. (See both parties’ Ex. A.)  The settlement agreement outlined the parties’ duties with respect to the boundary line between the property and construction of a fence. The verbal settlement agreement included the following with respect to attorney fees:

Plaintiffs’ counsel: “In the event there is any dispute under this agreement should an action be brought, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of actual attorney’s fees incurred.

Defense counsel: “How about in the event of litigation relating to this subject, to the subject matter of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the other party as its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs?

Plaintiffs’ counsel: “Now we are in a little conflict.  I said actual attorney’s fees. You said reasonable attorney’s fees. I’ll go with reasonable attorney’s fees.

The part of the parties’ settlement agreement regarding arbitration states as follows: “That in the event there’s a dispute between the parties, that the judge – retired Judge Jackman from adjudicate(sic) West will be designated arbitrator to hear on a binding arbitration level any disputes between the parties that they feel warrants judicial intervention.” (Ex. A.)

Thereafter, the parties attended arbitration with Judge Jackman on 5/29/18.  He executed an arbitration order on 7/13/18, an amended order on 7/27/21, and a final arbitration award on 5/9/22. 

In the case of Corona v. Amherst Partners (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 701, a home purchaser brought a motion against the seller to confirm an arbitration award.  The Superior Court confirmed the award, but denied the purchaser’s request for costs and attorney fees incurred in the arbitration.  The purchaser appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling in part and held that the superior court is precluded from making a determination as to a party’s entitlement to attorney fees as this was an issue that was subject to determination through arbitration.  In its opinion, the court explained that a superior court’s review of an arbitration award is limited, given the inherent nature of arbitration as an expeditious and efficient alternative means of dispute resolution. (Id. at 705.)  Specifically, “where parties have agreed their dispute will be resolved by binding arbitration, judicial intervention is limited to reviewing the award to see if statutory grounds for vacating or correcting the award exist.” (Id. at 706.)  The court held that “because the parties' stipulation did not limit the issues to be resolved through arbitration, the issue of Corona's entitlement to attorney fees and costs, as requested in his complaint, was subject to determination in arbitration proceedings.” (Id. at 706.)  Thus, the court rejected the purchaser’s argument that the court can determine the prevailing party and make an award of attorney fees and costs, even though this issue was within the scope of the contractual arbitration provision, finding this to be inconsistent with the policies underlying the statutory private arbitration scheme.  (Id.)

Like in Corona, the issue of the prevailing party and right to attorney fees and costs should have been submitted to the arbitrator under the parties’ agreement. Therefore, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion.

Respondents Luis Martinez and Amy Martinez shall give notice.