SUNNY WORLD FUND LLC v. OWEN, ET AL.

Case No. CU24-03168

Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award; Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitration award is denied. Defendant Silvermark Construction Services, Inc.’s petition to confirm the arbitration award is granted.

The court must confirm an arbitration award as made unless it corrects the award, vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.) Every presumption favors the arbitration award. (Thibodeau v. Crum (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 749, 760.)

An award may be vacated if the arbitrator exceeded his authority or the rights of the complaining party were substantially prejudiced by the arbitrator’s refusal to hear material evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.2, subds. (a)(4)-(a)(5).) “[A] decision exceeds the arbitrator’s powers only if it is so utterly irrational that it amounts to an arbitrary remaking of the contract between the parties.” (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 377, quoting S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. v.

United Transp. Union (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 416, 423.) An arbitrator generally has the power to decide any question of contract interpretation, historical fact, or general law necessary to reach a decision. (Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1179, 1184.) “Arbitrators do not ordinarily exceed their contractually created powers simply by reaching an erroneous conclusion on a contested issue of law or fact, and arbitral awards may not ordinarily be vacated because of such error, for ‘the arbitrator’s

resolution of these issues is what the parties bargained for in the arbitration agreement.’” (Ibid., quoting Moshonov v. Walsh (2000) 22 Cal.4th 771, 775-776)

A court must give substantial deference to an arbitrator’s own assessment of his or her contractual authority and must refrain from substituting its judgment for the arbitrator’s in determining the scope of the arbitration. (Advanced Micro Devices, supra, 9 Cal.4th at 372-373.) An arbitrator does not exceed his powers by failing to adopt a particular interpretation of the agreement or making a legally incorrect decision, even one that contradicts the parties’ agreement. (Cohen v. TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program, LLC (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 840, 875-876.)

The arbitrator did not exceed his authority in limiting the scope of the arbitration. Regardless of whether the arbitrator erred (factually or legally) in concluding that the parties had stipulated to narrowing the scope of the arbitration, the arbitrator is generally authorized to determine questions of contract interpretation, facts, and applicable law and nothing in the arbitration agreement between the parties limits this authority. Because the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in limiting the scope of the arbitration, the excluded evidence was not material to the controversy before the arbitrator.

Defendant is entitled to interest as of the date of the final award. (County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 753.) At ten percent per annum (Civ. Code § 3289(b)), the amount of accrued interest as of the date of the hearing is $59,741.31.

Defendant is also entitled to attorneys’ fees incurred in postarbitration proceedings, which are to be determined in a subsequent motion presenting evidence of the amount and reasonableness of the fees incurred. (Carole Ring & Assocs. v. Nicastro (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 253, 261.)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. $10,176.00 U.S. CURRENCY