Gray v. Chiu
212 Cal. App. 4th 1355
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Arbitration agreement provides for a neutral arbitrator in a medical malpractice arbitration.
- Defendant doctor’s counsel affiliates with the administering dispute resolution organization (DRPO) ADR Services, Inc. prior to arbitration without disclosure.
- Ginsburg—a defense attorney—becomes an ADR member and is involved as personal counsel for the defense in the arbitration.
- Judge Haber served as neutral arbitrator; disclosures indicated no ADR affiliation for Ginsburg were disclosed.
- Arbitration proceeds at ADR Century City; after nine days, a final award favorable to respondents is issued.
- Gray petitioned to vacate the award on disclosure grounds under the Act and Ethics Standards; trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ethics Standard 8 requires disclosure of a lawyer’s DRPO membership. | Gray argues arbitration must disclose DRPO membership. | Chiu argues no additional disclosure required absent other relationships. | Yes; must disclose DRPO membership. |
| Whether non-disclosure warrants vacatur under CCP 1286.2(a)(6). | Non-disclosure undermines fairness; vacatur appropriate. | Lack of disclosure does not necessarily void award absent other grounds. | Vacatur required; disclosure failure vacates award. |
| Whether estoppel/waiver bars vacatur for nondisclosure. | Non-disclosure cannot be waived; standards nonnegotiable. | Disclosure was effectively made by other party information. | Estoppel/waiver rejected; cannot circumvent standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haworth v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2010) (disclosure duties and limits under CCP 1281.9; de novo review on disclosures)
- Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) (essentials of fair arbitration; integrity of process)
- Azteca Construction, Inc. v. ADR Consulting, Inc., 121 Cal.App.4th 1156 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 2004) (arbitrator duties; disclosure requirements for impartiality)
- Ovitz v. Schulman, 133 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 2005) (continuing duty to disclose; standard for vacation of awards)
- Guseinov v. Burns, 145 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 2006) (disclosure requirements under ethics standards)