Behrmann v. Butkiewicz CA2/7

Filed 3/9/16 Behrmann v. Butkiewicz CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

BRIAN BEHRMANN, B261930

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SS024207) v.

LISA BUTKIEWICZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard Stone, Judge. Affirmed. Brian Behrmann, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lisa Butkiewicz, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________________

Appellant Brian Behrmann appeals from the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award against him. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Primary Phase LLC, a Florida company of which Behrmann was president, entered into an agreement with Lisa Butkiewicz to purchase her business in 2012. After Primary Phase failed to make the scheduled payments, Butkiewicz sought arbitration in accordance with the contract, naming the company along with three individuals, Karen, Brian and Walter Behrmann.1 As set forth in the Final Arbitration Award, the individuals objected to the arbitration asserting they were not parties to the contract.2 The arbitration clause in the purchase agreement incorporated the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Pursuant to those rules, the parties agreed that the arbitrator was given the authority to determine the proper parties to the agreement. The arbitrator, in making that determination, found that the agreement was entered into by Butkiewicz and Primary Phase LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation. The arbitrator found no basis to exercise jurisdiction over Karen, who he found had not participated in the transaction other than to object to it and block payment of the required funds. As to the other two individuals, the arbitrator found that they had materially participated in the transaction and that they were properly bound by the agreement on an alter ego theory. Brian Behrmann filed a petition to vacate the award in the trial court which Walter Behrmann did not join, asserting that the award had been “obtained by corruption, fraud, or other unfair means.” As supporting facts, he alleged only that he had never agreed to the arbitration personally.