Davis v. Calaway

California Court of Appeal May 19, 1975 No. Civ. 44596Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the arbitration award was properly served and that the appellant's challenge was time-barred under the 100-day limitation period of Code of Civil Procedure section 1288.2. Furthermore, the court affirmed that judicial review does not extend to the sufficiency of evidence or legal application in arbitration proceedings.

Issues

Whether the arbitration award was properly served upon the appellant.
Whether the appellant's challenge to the arbitration award was timely filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1288.2.
Whether the court has the authority to review the merits of an arbitrator's decision.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a discontented party to an arbitration proceeding must file objections to the award, ejther by his own petition to vacate or correct or by response to a petition to confirm, within 100 days of service of the award.”

“A court has no power to review the sufficiency of the evidence or the application of the law in an arbitration proceeding.”

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Attorneys James Davis and Martin Calaway agreed to arbitrate a dispute over division of a $75,000 legal fee from a case in which both had provided services. The arbitrator found Davis was entitled to half the fee plus interest and costs. The superior court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment on the award for Davis. Calaway appeals the judgment.

The appeal is totally unmeritorious. First, a specific finding by the trial court contradicts Calaway’s assertion that the arbitrator failed to properly serve him with the arbitration award. The letter of transmittal of the award by the arbitration association to Calaway provided prima facie proof of service.

Calaway offered no evidence on this or any other

[311]

issue in the trial court. In an arbitration proceeding special arbitration rules control the method of service.

Second, Calaway did not timely challenge the arbitration award in the superior court. Copies of the arbitration award were transmitted to the parties on 11 December 1972. Davis filed his petition for confirmation of the award on 9 May 1973. Calaway responded on 17 May 1973 with his objections to the award. Code of Civil Procedure section 1288.2 provides that “a response requesting that an award be vacated or that an award be corrected shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of service of a signed copy of the award . . . .” Calaway filed his response two months past the 100-day limitation of section 1288.2.

(Coordinated Construction, Inc.

Canoga Big “A,” Inc.,

238 Cal.App.2d 313, 316 [47 Cal.Rptr. 749].)

Third, Calaway sought no relief in the trial court from his default on the 100-day limitation of section 1288.2, and he offers no excuse on this appeal which would justify his failure to comply with the mandate of that section. (See

Davis v. Calaway

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief