Rivera v. Shivers, 54 Cal.App.5th 82

Rivera sued Robert and Linda Shivers (unlawful detainer and related damages); Shivers counterclaimed for habitability. Case moved to unlimited jurisdiction and the court initially contemplated a referee but then ordered arbitration.
Counsel stipulated (in an undated writing signed by counsel only) to arbitration before retired Judge Dennis Choate at ADR Services; the court’s minute order described the arbitration as "binding" per the parties’ stipulation.
Arbitration occurred Jan. 30–Feb. 7, 2019. Choate issued an award in favor of the Shivers on March 13, 2019 (money and fees); the award was not filed with the court and Shivers filed a petition to confirm on April 3, 2019.
Rivera opposed confirmation, alleging arbitrator bias based on a belatedly disclosed mentoring relationship between Choate and Shivers’ counsel’s late father; Rivera filed his response within 100 days of the award but not within 10 days of the petition to confirm (§1290.6).
The trial court denied confirmation, concluding the arbitration was nonbinding because it was court-ordered and the stipulation lacked client signatures. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the parties had agreed to binding arbitration, counsel’s stipulation bound the clients under the circumstances, and Rivera’s bias challenge was untimely and without merit.

Issue	Rivera's Argument	Shivers' Argument	Held
Was the arbitration judicial (nonbinding) or contractual (binding)?	Arbitration was court-ordered judicial arbitration and thus nonbinding.	Parties stipulated to binding arbitration before Choate; treated as binding.	Held: contractual/binding — parties’ stipulation and conduct show binding arbitration.
Can a stipulation to binding arbitration signed by counsel (not clients) bind the clients?	Counsel lacked authority; clients didn’t sign so no waiver of forum.	Counsel’s stipulation is presumptively authorized; clients ratified by conduct and made no objection.	Held: counsel’s stipulation binds absent notice of lack of authority; parties’ conduct ratified it.
Was Rivera’s request to vacate timely and did the trial court have authority to consider it?	Response to petition was timely under the 100‑day rule; merits justify vacatur.	Response was untimely under §1290.6 (10‑day rule); court lacked authority to hear it.	Held: Rivera’s response was not timely under §1290.6; trial court lacked authority to consider it.
Did arbitrator bias warrant vacatur of the award?	Choate’s late disclosure of a mentoring tie created an impression of bias; vacatur appropriate.	No evidence Choate knew counsel’s identity before disclosures; Rivera did not timely move to disqualify.	Held: Vacatur denied — Rivera failed to show arbitrator was aware of a disqualifying ground or to make a timely disqualification demand.

Mercury Ins. Group v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 332 (Cal. 1998) (distinguishes judicial nonbinding arbitration from contractual binding arbitration)
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992) (contractual arbitration awards generally not subject to judicial review)
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000) (post‑dispute arbitration agreements and enforceability principles)
Blanton v. Womancare, Inc., 38 Cal.3d 396 (Cal. 1985) (attorney cannot waive substantial client rights without consent; ratification doctrine discussed)
Sanker v. Brown, 167 Cal.App.3d 1144 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (advises including client signatures on arbitration stipulations; attorney signature alone may be insufficient in some contexts)
ECC Capital Corp. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 9 Cal.App.5th 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (vacatur under §1286.2(a)(6)(A) requires arbitrator actually knew of disqualifying ground)
De Mello v. Souza, 36 Cal.App.3d 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) (procedural timelines for seeking vacatur/correction in arbitration proceedings)
Commonwealth Coating Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968) (nondisclosure by arbitrator can, in some circumstances, support vacatur)