Buchalter v. HR E&I Co. CA1/1

Filed 12/18/25 Buchalter v. HR E&I Co. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, A172779 Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Francisco City and v. County Super. Ct. HR E&I CO., LTD., No. CGC-23-606831) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant HR E&I Co., Ltd., (HR E&I), appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of its former attorney, respondent Buchalter. We affirm.1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Buchalter represented HR E&I, formerly known as Horyong Co. Ltd., in successfully obtaining a judgment of about $2 million against Chang and Young Ahn. The amount of fees HR E&I owed Buchalter for its services was

1 Even though we reject HR E&I’s arguments, we deny Buchalter’s

motion for sanctions. (See Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1261 [appellate sanctions are used sparingly to deter only the most egregious conduct]; In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650 [“An appeal that is simply without merit is not by definition frivolous and should not incur sanctions”].)

disputed, and after Buchalter filed a lien against the judgment, the Ahns filed an interpleader for a portion of the disputed amount. The fee dispute was arbitrated, and the arbitrator awarded Buchalter a little over $250,000 in fees and costs. Buchalter moved to confirm the arbitration award in the trial court. The court confirmed the award after rejecting HR E&I’s arguments, including its arguments that the award was procured by fraud or undue means, and that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. II. DISCUSSION A. The Applicable Law. It is axiomatic that judicial review of judgments confirming arbitration awards is limited. “[A]rbitral finality is a core component of the parties’ agreement to submit to arbitration.” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 10 (Moncharsh.) Parties to an arbitration agreement must accept the risk of arbitrator errors because arbitrators are not required to make decisions according to the rule of law, and their decisions cannot be judicially reviewed for errors of fact or law even if the error is apparent and causes substantial injustice. (Id. at pp. 11–12). As a consequence, “an arbitral award should ordinarily stand immune from judicial scrutiny.” (Id. at p. 32; see also Shahinian v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 987, 1006–1007 [when an arbitrator errs “ ‘ “in either determining the appropriate law or applying it,” ’ the parties may obtain court review of the merits ‘only if the arbitration agreement expressly provided’ ” for such review], italics omitted.) In considering an appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award, a reviewing court may not “ ‘review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator’s reasoning, nor may [it] correct