Maaso v. Signer
203 Cal. App. 4th 362
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Maaso and Signer agreed to binding arbitration under a Physician-Patient Arbitration Agreement; three arbitrators were selected (Maaso’s party arbitrator Milman, Signer’s party arbitrator Hammond, neutral Haber).
- First arbitration occurred in Feb 2008; Haber reserved causation ruling; Hammond sent postarbitration ex parte letter to Haber; Milman unaware of letter; Haber issued a signed award finding negligence but no causation in Maaso. The award was vacated due to ex parte communication and a new arbitration was ordered before a different neutral arbitrator.
- Second arbitration occurred in Feb 2010; Maaso prevailed for $594,243; arbitrators awarded costs and fees per the arbitration agreement; Signer paid the judgment to stop interest accrual.
- Maaso sought costs under CCP §998 and prejudgment interest under Civil Code §3291 after the second arbitration; Signer opposed confirmation and later appealed.
- The trial court granted vacatur of the first award and confirmed the second award, awarding costs and interest to Maaso only to the extent allowed by the arbitration agreement; both parties appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed: vacating the first award was proper due to undue means; Maaso’s §998 costs and §3291 interest were not awarded because Maaso did not request them from the arbitrators and the second award did not include those enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first arbitration award was properly vacated. | Maaso contends undue means infected the award via ex parte communication. | Signer argues no grounds to vacate under 1286.2. | Yes, the first award properly vacated. |
| Whether Maaso was entitled to section 998 costs and prejudgment interest in the second arbitration. | Maaso should recover 998 costs and 3291 interest as prevailing party. | Maaso failed to request 998 costs or present evidence; arbitrators awarded costs per arbitration agreement. | No, not entitled to 998 costs or 3291 interest. |
| Whether the second arbitration was proper or a misguided remedy after vacating the first award. | Second arbitration should proceed to determine the dispute. | Second arbitration was improper if the first award should have stood. | Second arbitration proper; vacatur of first award upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., 112 Cal.App.4th 810 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (undue means must be tied to prejudice in order to vacate an award)
- Pacific Crown Distributors v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 183 Cal.App.3d 1108 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (postarbitration briefs cannot subvert arbitration process)
- Knass v. Blue Cross of California, 228 Cal.App.3d 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (timing to challenge an award affects appellate rights)
- Giorgianni v. Crowley, 197 Cal.App.4th 1464 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (preserves objections to entry of judgment when challenges to award exist)
- United Firefighters of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 231 Cal.App.3d 1576 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (emphasizes consideration of judicial review limits in arbitration)
- Corona v. Amherst Partners, 107 Cal.App.4th 701 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (issues outside arbitration scope cannot be raised after award without proper basis)
- Caro v. Smith, 59 Cal.App.4th 725 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (arbitrator’s explicit carryover of cost rights analyzed; prejudgment interest context)
- Weinberg v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 114 Cal.App.4th 1075 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (when award lacks explicit denial of costs, 998 costs and interest may attach)