United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley, Inc. v. Superior Court
229 Cal. App. 4th 63
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Trial court vacated arbitration award in Vradenburg-Haworth v. United Health Centers based on alleged noncompliance with CCP 1281.9 and ethics standards.
- Issue arose after arbitrator Broadman’s disclosures were incomplete and he allegedly waived certain disclosures; parties sought mandate relief.
- Dornbirer v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. held that waivers of disclosure rights can be enforceable; Dornbirer was later questioned by 1281.85(c).
- AB 1090 added 1281.85(c) declaring ethics requirements nonnegotiable and not waivable; Vradenburg-Haworth argued Dornbirer was overruled by statute.
- Court considered whether Dornbirer remains viable post-1281.85(c) and concluded Dornbirer remains viable but limited to waiver-type contracts, not forfeitures.
- Court remanded for factual development on whether Vradenburg-Haworth’s counsel had actual knowledge of a ground for disqualification before arbitration began.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 1281.85(c) eliminate Dornbirer’s waiver rule? | Dornbirer overruled by 1281.85(c). | Dornbirer remains viable; statute prohibits waivers only, not forfeitures. | Dornbirer remains viable; statute prohibits waivers, not forfeitures. |
| Whether an arbitrator’s incomplete disclosures can justify vacatur under 1286.2(a)(6)(A)? | Incomplete disclosures require vacatur. | Incomplete disclosures do not automatically vacate; inquiry and waiver rules apply. | Incomplete disclosures may support vacatur only when they amount to grounds for disqualification. |
| Was the doctrine of waiver applicable to prevent vacatur in this case? | Dornbirer-waiver and Dornbirer analysis apply; parties did not disqualify timely. | AB 1090 restricts waivers; Dornbirer should not govern here. | Court held Dornbirer applicable; remanded to assess factual posture. |
| Should the court grant writ review to address the arbitration-vacatur order? | Writ is appropriate due to first-impression issue and irreparable harm. | Petition should be denied or limited relief. | Writ granted; remanded to reconsider in light of Dornbirer and 1281.85(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- Dornbirer v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 831 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (waiver question preserved when arbitrator’s disclosures insufficient; applies to forfeiture vs waiver distinction)
- Haworth v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2010) (arbitrator disclosures and standard of review for undisputed facts)
- Gray v. Chiu, 212 Cal.App.4th 1355 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (arbitrator must disclose DRPO membership; failure vacates under 1286.2(a)(6))
- Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P. v. Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP, 219 Cal.App.4th 1299 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (failure to disclose resume reference; party not required to investigate; disclosures timely)
- Azteca Construction, Inc. v. ADR Consulting Inc., 121 Cal.App.4th 1156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (arbitrator ethics not negotiable; private arbitration cannot override statutory rights)