21 Cal. App. 5th 1058
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Starline Tours (appellant) and EHM Productions d/b/a TMZ (respondent) contracted for a TMZ-branded tour; several Starline bus drivers sued Starline and later added third parties, including TMZ.
- TMZ tendered defense to Starline; dispute arose over Starline's contractual duty to defend/indemnify TMZ and TMZ Productions.
- TMZ demanded arbitration; the arbitrator issued a partial final award requiring Starline to defend TMZ and pay attorneys’ fees and costs through a set date, and reserved jurisdiction to enforce the defense obligation and decide future fees/costs.
- Under the parties’ JAMS optional appeal procedure, Starline appealed to a JAMS appellate panel, which affirmed the partial final award and later issued a separate final award awarding TMZ $41,429.92 in costs for the JAMS appeal.
- TMZ petitioned the trial court to confirm the partial award (which was confirmed and affirmed on appeal) and separately petitioned to confirm the JAMS cost award; the trial court confirmed the cost award and Starline appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the one‑final‑judgment rule prevents confirmation of a subsequently issued arbitration cost award | The one‑final‑judgment rule forbids piecemeal judgments from a single arbitration; confirming the cost award after confirming the partial award improperly permits multiple final judgments | The incremental confirmation was proper because the arbitrator reserved jurisdiction and incremental awards are permitted when necessary to enforce relief | Court affirmed: one‑final‑judgment rule does not bar confirming the later cost award; incremental awards allowed (Hightower rationale) |
| Whether TMZ waived or is estopped from seeking separate confirmation of the cost award | TMZ had years to wait and could have combined confirmation; its conduct amounts to waiver/estoppel | TMZ was entitled to confirm each award when issued; no authority requires simultaneous presentation; doctrines don’t apply here | Court held no waiver/estoppel; separate petition to confirm cost award was permissible |
| Whether the trial court should have dismissed or vacated confirmation petition under CCP §1286.2 | Starline implied that the cost award should be vacated or the petition denied | TMZ argued judicial confirmation is proper unless statutory vacatur grounds apply | Court applied de novo review and noted Starline did not argue vacatur under §1286.2 on appeal; confirmation was proper |
| Whether procedural posture (new action vs. amending petition) mandates reversal | Starline argued procedural misstep (new petition rather than amend) required reversal | TMZ argued no rule requires amendment; either petition is acceptable to obtain confirmation | Court found no authority requiring amendment and refused to reverse on procedure alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Hightower v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.4th 1415 (Cal. Ct. App.) (approves multiple incremental arbitral awards and confirms procedure to enforce reserved issues)
- Kurwa v. Kislinger, 57 Cal.4th 1097 (Cal.) (explains one‑final‑judgment rule and appealability limits)
- Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal.) (arbitral decisions generally not subject to judicial review on merits)
- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 9 Cal.4th 362 (Cal.) (standard of review for confirming arbitration awards explained)
- Roehl v. Ritchie, 147 Cal.App.4th 338 (Cal. Ct. App.) (limits on judicial vacatur of arbitration awards)
- Fleuret v. Hale Constr. Co., 12 Cal.App.3d 227 (Cal. Ct. App.) (one final judgment principle in non‑arbitral direct/cross‑action context)
- Cinel v. Christopher, 203 Cal.App.4th 759 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court’s limited options on a petition to confirm arbitration award)
- Oakland Raiders v. Oakland‑Alameda County Coliseum, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 1175 (Cal. Ct. App.) (doctrine of implied waiver/estoppel where party’s conduct is inconsistent with enforcing a right)