Cinel v. Christopher
203 Cal. App. 4th 759
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Cinel and Christopher (and five others) entered an underlying contract; arbitration was pursued over securities fraud claims.
- Several defendants refused to pay their share of arbitrator fees, leading the AAA to suspend and ultimately terminate the arbitration.
- Christopher moved to confirm the arbitration award and dismiss Cinel’s complaint; Cinel argued the termination order was not an award and thus not subject to confirmation.
- Trial court denied the petition to confirm, stating there was no actual award because the arbitration terminated for nonpayment of fees.
- On appeal, the court held the denial of the petition to confirm was an appealable dismissal and that the arbitrator’s termination for nonpayment did not constitute an award subject to confirmation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the denial of a petition to confirm appealable? | Cinel argues denial is appealable under §1294 as a dismissal. | Christopher asserts denial is not appealable and should be treated as a vacatur. | The denial is appealable as a dismissal. |
| Whether the arbitrator's termination for lack of fee payment constitutes an award | The termination is not a proper award, so not subject to confirmation. | If it were an award, it could be confirmed, vacated, or corrected. | Not an award; not subject to confirmation. |
| If no award exists, may the court set for trial rather than confirm | The court should confirm the award and dismiss. | The matter should not be treated as an award; dismissal or restart in court is proper. | Court properly denied confirmation and retained power to set for trial. |
| Whether the stay on arbitration affected the trial court's jurisdiction | Stay preserved arbitrator's jurisdiction; lifting stay was improper. | Stay ended when arbitration terminated; court could proceed. | Stay terminated appropriately; court could set for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Karton v. Segreto, 176 Cal.App.4th 1 (2009) (denial of petition to confirm treated as dismissal permits appeal)
- Mid-Wilshire Associates v. O’Leary, 7 Cal.App.4th 1450 (1992) (denial of petition to vacate/correct not appealable; result depends on judgment)
- Lifescan Inc. v. Premier Diabetic Services, 363 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes petition to compel/arbitration from petition to confirm)
- Young v. Ross-Loos Medical Group, Inc., 135 Cal.App.3d 669 (1982) (diligence concept imported into arbitration proceedings)
- National Marble Co. v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, 184 Cal.App.3d 1057 (1986) (procedural posture under §1294 related to appeals)
- MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC, 191 Cal.App.4th 643 (2011) (distinguishable in stay/arbitration context)
- Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (1992) (limits judicial review of arbitration awards)