A Textbook Example Of How Difficult It Is To Challenge An Arbitration Award.
Our next case involved a family dispute in the California wine industry, following the death of the family patriarch. Nickel v. Far Niente Wine Estates, LLC, et al., A150513 (1/1 12/29/17) (unpublished).
Affirming the trial court's denial of plaintiffs/appellants' petition to correct or vacate the award, the Court of Appeal gave short shrift to three arguments.
First, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the arbitration award should be vacated or corrected because plaintiffs were denied an opportunity to respond to late evidence. The Court explained that the arbitrator did not refuse to consider evidence, and that plaintiffs also failed to make a required a showing of prejudice.
Second, the Court rejected an argument that the award needed to be vacated or corrected because an included award of injunctive relief was ambiguous. Changing the award would not have amounted to a minor correction, but rather to a substantive change -- and the Court was not entitled to make such a change in connection with a request to correct the award. Nor could the award be vacated simply because there was a mistake of law or fact.
Third, the Court of Appeal deferred to the arbitrator's decision that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide certain water rights issues. For one thing, the parties had agreed to proceed under JAMS rules, and rule 11 provides that the arbitrator will resolve jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes. Even absent the incorporation of JAMS rules, California case law provides, "courts should generally defer to an arbitrator's finding that determination of a particular question is within the scope of his or her contractual authority." Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel, 9 Cal.4th 362, 372 (1994).
Once again, we have an example of the considerable obstacles that a disappointed party must overcome to successfully challenge an arbitration award.
Comments