196 Cal. App. 4th 1283
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Rohde and Precious Smart formed Lipoid USA, LLC with Rebmann/RRB; arbitration arose over alleged misrepresentations in the venture.
- Arbitrator Stephen Haberfeld, a retired federal magistrate judge, was selected by JAMS with a disclosure checklist and assurances of impartiality.
- Disclosure proceedings occurred; Haberfeld stated no disclosures were needed and parties were urged to report any inconsistencies.
- Arbitrator Haberfeld ruled largely for the Rebmann parties, awarding substantial attorney fees and costs after nominal damages to Rohde’s side.
- Rohde and others petitioned to vacate or oppose confirmation; they later alleged Haberfeld’s undisclosed German Jewish background could show partiality.
- Trial court granted petition to confirm arbitration and denied vacatur; defendants sought deposition and a statement of decision, both denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitrator’s duty to disclose impartiality concerns | Rohde contends Haberfeld’s background created bias and required disclosure. | Rohde argues Haberfeld’s background undermined impartiality; disclosure was required. | No duty to disclose; no reasonable doubt of impartiality shown. |
| Right to depose arbitrator | Defendants should depose Haberfeld for bias-related information. | Deposition warranted under CCP 170.1/703.5 but improper here due to lack of bias. | Deposition not properly before court; issue rejected as procedural matters. |
| Need for a statement of decision in arbitration confirmation | Defendants request a detailed statement of decision under §632. | Statement of decision required for clarity on factual/legal basis. | Statute §632 not applicable to arbitration-confirmation proceedings; no statement required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haworth v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2010) (arbitrator disclosure standard mirrors judicial disqualification; reasonable observer test)
- Guseinov v. Burns, 145 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. App. 2006) (burden on party to show bias facts; impartiality standard)
- Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron, 177 Cal.App.4th 771 (Cal. App. 2009) (due diligence and disclosure not triggered by hypotheticals)
- Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, 44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008) (statutory interpretation of terms like 'trial' governs procedural deadlines)