Tennant v. Ramirez CA6
H046104
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 2, 2021Background
- Ramirez hired attorney Tennant to pursue estate claims based on oral promises; they executed multiple contingency agreements culminating in a November 2014 agreement providing Tennant a $225,000 payment for trial work and a 69% contingency on any appeal recovery.
- After a partial trial victory, Tennant pursued an estate appeal; the appeal was settled shortly before argument by transferring an undeveloped parcel to Ramirez.
- Ramirez and Tennant disputed the fees due under the November 2014 agreement; Ramirez demanded arbitration under the Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA).
- A three-member arbitration panel found the 2014 contingency agreement enforceable (rejecting unconscionability), applied factors in Rule 4-200, and awarded Tennant $207,658.42 in fees and costs.
- Tennant petitioned to confirm the arbitration award in superior court; the court confirmed the award, entered judgment, and Ramirez appealed arguing vacatur/correction under Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.2 and denial of an opportunity to present testimony.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: Ramirez failed to show arbitrators exceeded powers or the award was procured by undue means; trial court did not err in denying additional testimony or correcting the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrators exceeded their powers so award must be vacated (§ 1286.2(a)(4)) | Tennant: confirmation appropriate; arbitration proper forum and award within arbitrators’ authority | Ramirez: panel exceeded powers by enforcing an allegedly unconscionable/conflicted 69% contingency and misapplying standards | Court: No. Ramirez failed to show violation of unwaivable statutory rights or public policy; mere legal/factual error insufficient to vacate; award stands |
| Whether award was procured by "corruption, fraud, or other undue means" (§ 1286.2(a)(1)) | Tennant: arbitration was fair; panel heard testimony and documents | Ramirez: fee and process tainted by conflicts/undue means; arbitration result unfair | Court: No. Ramirez did not identify clear, convincing evidence that the arbitration’s fairness or integrity was undermined; undue-means claim fails |
| Whether trial court erred by denying Ramirez leave to present testimony at confirmation hearing | Tennant: confirmation hearing need not reopen already‑concluded MFAA arbitration | Ramirez: court should have allowed additional testimonial evidence before confirming award | Court: No. No authority required reopening the MFAA arbitration after it concluded; Ramirez forfeited trial‑de novo procedures and did not timely request one |
| Whether the court should have corrected award instead of confirming (§ 1286.6(b)) | Tennant: confirm as issued; no correctable error shown | Ramirez: sought correction of award calculations and alleged panel misapplication | Court: No. Ramirez offered no persuasive basis for correction; trial court properly refused correction and confirmed the award |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (1992) (judicial review of arbitral reasoning is limited; policy favors finality of arbitration awards)
- Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 909 (2015) (arbitral errors of law or fact do not alone show arbitrator exceeded powers)
- Jordan v. California Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 100 Cal.App.4th 431 (2002) (arbitrator exceeds powers when acting beyond contract or law; review is deferential)
- Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., 112 Cal.App.4th 810 (2003) ("undue means" requires more than unfairness; conflict must be shown by clear and convincing evidence)
- Maynard v. Brandon, 36 Cal.4th 364 (2005) (MFAA allows trial de novo if timely requested; failure to request is acquiescence)
- Heimlich v. Shivji, 7 Cal.5th 350 (2019) (arbitral legal/factual errors in fee disputes are generally not reversible)
- Prima Donna Dev. Corp. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 42 Cal.App.5th 22 (2019) (limited, exceptional circumstances permit vacatur where awards violate statutory or public policy rights)