Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case 37-2022-00017606-CU-BT-CTL 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00017606-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Business Tort Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00017606-CU-BT-CTL JHA VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS DE INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Review of Arbitration Award is DENIED.

Plaintiff SACHCIEDANAND JHA ('Plaintiff') appears to challenge the arbitrator's award, which was in favor of Defendant CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ('Defendant').

'[A]n award reached by an arbitrator pursuant to a contractual agreement to arbitrate is not subject to judicial review except on the grounds set forth in Sections 1286.2 (to vacate) and 1286.6 (for correction).' (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 33). '[I]t is the general rule that, with narrow exceptions, an arbitrator's decision cannot be reviewed for errors of fact or law.' (Id. at 11.) Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following: ...

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

...

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2(a).) It appears to the Court that Plaintiff relies exclusively upon CCP section 1286.2(a)(4). ''This exception is narrowly construed. Arbitrators do not exceed their powers by reaching erroneous factual or legal conclusions on the merits of the parties' claims, even if the award causes substantial injustice to one of the parties.'' (Starr v. Mayhew (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 842, 859 [Citation omitted].) As the Court reads Plaintiff's motion, Plaintiff is asserting the arbitrator was erroneous in its view of the facts and law. While Plaintiff asserts the evidence indicated a violation of the Rosenthal Act, the arbitrator disagreed. Even if this Court were to agree that Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to the arbitrator that a violation occurred, Plaintiff has not provided evidence, as noted by the arbitrator, that Plaintiff suffered any damages. At best, Plaintiff refers to a 'loss of reputation by a lower credit,' but Plaintiff does not cite any evidence presented to the arbitrator as to any actual damages from this purported loss of reputation by a lower credit.' '[W]here a party complains of excluded material evidence, the reviewing court should generally focus first on prejudice, not materiality. To find substantial prejudice the court must accept, for purposes of analysis, the arbitrator's legal theory and conclude that the arbitrator might well have made a different award had the evidence been allowed.' (Hall v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 427, 429.) Even if the arbitrator had failed to consider some of Plaintiff's evidence, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051126 51 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: JHA VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS DE INC 37-2022-00017606-CU-BT-CTL prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff asserts the arbitrator failed to consider evidence, Plaintiff's argument fails.

The motion in denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3051126 51