Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCP02772, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP02772    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 31, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award;

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

T/R:     THE PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD IS DENIED.

THE PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD IS GRANTED.

PETITIONERS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, oppositions and replies.

A. Carl Rinsch and Home VFX’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.  (CCP § 1285.)  “Except for the very limited grounds set forth in section 1286.2 and 1286.6, awards are immune from judicial review.”  (Cinel v. Christopher (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 759, 767, n.5 [citing Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 1, 12–13.)  CCP § 1286.2(a) permits the Court to vacate an arbitration award for any of the following reasons:

(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 party 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 either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (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. . . .

Arbitrators do not “exceed their powers” merely by rendering an erroneous decision on a legal or factual issue.  (Moncharsh, supra at 28.) 

Rinsch and Home VFX move to vacate the arbitrator’s award on the grounds that the arbitrator had an appearance of bias against Rinsch, and that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by rewriting terms of the contracts at issue in the arbitration. Following a 14-day trial on the merits, Hon. Rita Miller (Ret.) issued an award in favor of Netflix and against Rinsch arising from disputes related to the production of a series created by Rinsch, titled Conquest.

1.    Appearance of Bias

Rinsch asserts that the arbitrator showed bias against him when she made comments about Rinsch’s autism diagnosis in the middle of the 14-day trial on the merits of the parties’ claims. Specifically, the arbitrator expressed concern that mentioning Rinsch’s autism diagnosis and certain emails that Rinsch sent to Netflix personnel during their conflict might have a “deleterious effect on his career” or might be “embarrassing.” The arbitrator suggested that counsel confer about sealing a portion of the award for this reason. Rinsch argues that this shows bias against him because the arbitrator believed that his autism diagnosis was embarrassing and because the arbitrator believed that the award may have a negative effect on his career, showing that she had already made up her mind against him.

In opposition, Netflix argues that these comments do not show any bias toward Rinsch, and instead reflect the arbitrator’s concern and respect for Rinsch. Netflix also asserts that the claim of bias is further unsubstantiated by the fact that Rinsch did not move to disqualify the arbitrator for bias until 8 months after the comments were made and until after the arbitrator issued her interim award against Rinsch. Netflix also presents a letter sent directly from Rinsch to the arbitrator after the close of the trial thanking her for presiding over the case with “fairness and integrity.”

The comments cited by Rinsch do not show bias by the arbitrator. They show concern for the parties’ privacy and careers outside of the arbitration process. Rinsch’s arguments to the contrary are undermined by the failure to timely raise the issue during arbitration and by Rinsch’s expression of gratitude and praise of the arbitrator’s integrity. These are not grounds to vacate the arbitration award.

2.    Authority of the Arbitrator

Rinsch alternatively argues that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator exceeded her powers by rewriting the terms of the parties’ agreements. Rinsch asserts that the arbitrator “remade” the agreements by considering evidence outside of the four corners of the agreements.

The arbitrator’s interpretation of the contracts and the evidence considered in reaching that interpretation are within the discretion of the arbitrator. Courts do not review the merits of the controversy, the validity of the arbitrator’s reasoning, or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the arbitrator’s award. (See Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11.) An arbitrator exceeds their authority by, for example, ruling on issues outside the scope arbitration agreement. That is not what occurred here. The award cannot be vacated on this basis.

The petition to vacate the arbitration award is DENIED.

B. Ice Cream Fridge, LLC and Netflix Entertainment, LLC’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration

Netflix moves to confirm the arbitration award. Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. (CCP § 1285.) Netflix has complied with CCP § 1285.4. Rinsch opposes the petition on the ground that Netflix should have filed the petition under the case number opened by the petition to vacate. The Court will not deny the petition on this ground.

The petition to confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.