26 Cal. App. 5th 394
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Instacart and Busick had an arbitration agreement (JAMS rules, California law) covering disputes; Busick filed a class arbitration claiming misclassification of shoppers/drivers.
- Under JAMS class procedures the arbitrator issued a “Partial Final Award” holding Busick may move for class certification in arbitration but did not decide certification or merits.
- Instacart petitioned the superior court to vacate the partial final award, arguing legal error and excess of arbitrator authority; Busick argued the partial ruling was not an "award" under Cal. Civ. Proc. §1283.4 and thus not immediately reviewable.
- The superior court dismissed Instacart’s petition for lack of jurisdiction; Instacart appealed the dismissal.
- The Court of Appeal considered (1) whether the superior court order was appealable and (2) whether the partial final award qualifies as an "award" under §1283.4 and so is subject to immediate judicial review under the California Arbitration Act (CAA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Instacart) | Defendant's Argument (Busick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the superior court’s order dismissing the petition appealable? | The order functionally dismissed the petition to vacate and is appealable under §1294(b). | The order was labeled a "denial" and thus not an appealable dismissal. | The court treated the order as a dismissal of the petition and held it is appealable under §1294(b). |
| Does the arbitrator’s partial ruling (allowing a class-certification motion) constitute an "award" under §1283.4 and therefore permit immediate vacation/confirmation under the CAA? | The partial ruling addresses a discrete question submitted to the arbitrator and is reasonably necessary to afford an effective remedy; parties may contract for judicial review of such interim awards. | The ruling does not determine all questions necessary to resolve the controversy and therefore is not an "award" under §1283.4; allowing review would enable piecemeal judicial intrusion into arbitration. | The court held the partial ruling is not an "award" under §1283.4 because it leaves unresolved the core merits and most submitted questions; trial court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, 44 Cal.4th 1334 (Cal. 2008) (permitted judicial review for legal error in an arbitration award under parties’ agreement; did not resolve whether interim nonfinal rulings are reviewable)
- Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.App.5th 1125 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interim arbitrator rulings that do not resolve the arbitration as a whole are not §1283.4 awards and court lacks jurisdiction to confirm/vacate)
- Cinel v. Christopher, 203 Cal.App.4th 759 (Cal. Ct. App.) (arbitrator order terminating proceedings for nonpayment was not an "award" under §1283.4; petition to confirm properly dismissed)
- Hightower v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.4th 1415 (Cal. Ct. App.) (partial final award qualified as an §1283.4 award where it resolved the essential dispute and remaining matters were conditional or potential)
- Roehl v. Ritchie, 147 Cal.App.4th 338 (Cal. Ct. App.) (partial award that effectively decided the central dispute was treated as an §1283.4 award)
- Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc., 232 Cal.App.4th 619 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held clause-construction interim award was not an §1283.4 award; trial court order vacating such an interim award was nonappealable in that posture)