Nemecek & Cole v. Horn, 208 Cal. App. 4th 641

Horn retained to represent Hoffmans in lot-line dispute; Hoffmans obtained adverse verdict on fee and fraud claims, resulting in a net zero judgment after offsets.
Nemecek & Cole represented Horn in the matter against the Hoffmans; later arbitration was demanded over Nemecek’s fees.
Arbitrator Schiavelli disclosed to the parties; Horn sought additional disclosure of matters involving Nemecek; JAMS claimed no further disclosures were required.
Arbitrator’s five-day evidentiary hearing produced an award favoring Nemecek on fees; Horn elected to pursue vacatur of the award.
Horn’s investigation uncovered undisclosed relationships between the arbitrator and Nemecek’s personnel and witnesses; Horn moved to vacate and Nemecek sought to confirm.
Trial court denied vacatur and confirmed the award; Horn appealed, challenging disclosure failures and attorney-fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether undisclosed connections void the arbitration award	Horn	Nemecek	No basis to vacate; no disqualifying disclosures required
Whether attorney fees awarded were proper	Horn	Nemecek	Fees affirmed; market-rate reasonable value supported by record
Whether alleged ex parte communication affected validity	Horn	Nemecek	No proven ex parte communication; speculation rejected

Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992) (comprehensive arbitration framework; standards for disclosure and impartiality)
Haworth v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2010) (de novo review of trial court on arbitration confirmation)
Koch, 162 Cal.App.4th 720 (Cal. App. 2008) (attorney affiliations and minor relationships need not be disclosed)
PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) (reasonableness of in-house counsel fees; market value standard)
Vella v. Hudgins, 151 Cal.App.3d 515 (Cal. App. 1984) (fees may be awarded based on market value, not actual incurred costs)