Hooman Automotive Group v. Glaser Weil Fink etc. CA2/3, B322256

Hooman Nissani and his companies HK Automotive Group, RHC Automotive, and RHH Automotive (collectively, “plaintiffs”) retained the law firm Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP (“Glaser Weil”) for legal services, entering several engagement agreements covering both individual and company representation.
Plaintiffs failed to pay $462,457.31 in outstanding legal fees. Glaser Weil notified them of their right to arbitration under the California Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) and, after plaintiffs requested arbitration, an arbitration hearing was scheduled.
On the eve of the hearing, Nissani claimed illness and unsuccessfully sought a continuance; the arbitration proceeded in plaintiffs’ absence, and the panel issued a non-binding award for the full amount to Glaser Weil.
Plaintiffs filed suit to set aside the award, arguing improper process and seeking damages for alleged overbilling.
Glaser Weil petitioned to confirm the arbitration award, arguing plaintiffs willfully failed to appear and had forfeited their right to a trial de novo under MFAA.
The trial court confirmed the award against all plaintiffs, finding willful failure to appear and no error in the parties bound by the results; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs’ failure to appear at arbitration was willful	Nissani was too ill to attend, supported by a doctor's note	Evidence of delay tactics and insufficient proof of inability; willful avoidance	Plaintiffs willfully failed to appear; forfeited trial de novo right
Whether judgment could be entered against HK, RHC, and RHH	Entities did not receive notice or participate under their corporate names; only Hooman Automotive Group named	Entities did business as Hooman Automotive Group, were parties to agreements and disputes	Judgment proper: fictitious name correction, all entities bound
Whether judgment could be entered against Nissani personally	Nissani did not arbitrate in his individual capacity, only as an officer	Engagements and arbitration notice included Nissani individually; he admitted personal involvement	Judgment proper: Nissani bound individually
Whether the court improperly deferred determinations to the arbitrator	Trial court abdicated its function by relying on the arbitrator’s findings	Court made independent findings and reviewed all evidence	No abdication; court properly exercised independent review

Aguilar v. Lerner, 32 Cal.4th 974 (Cal. 2004) (explains the purpose and structure of California's Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act)
Schatz v. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, 45 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 2009) (addresses parties’ rights under the MFAA, including trial de novo and attorney obligations)
Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 23 Cal.App.4th 174 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (interprets “willful” in the civil penalty context, informing the present case’s definition)
Merritt v. Marks, 175 Cal.App.3d 825 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (discusses deliberate circumvention of arbitration and trial de novo standards)
Pinkerton’s, Inc. v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (clarifies legal effect of fictitious business names)