The Case Includes Good Discussion Of What Constitutes A Judicial Admission.
With narrow exceptions, an arbitrator's decision cannot be reviewed for errors of fact or law. One such exception, which was invoked by the Appellant in Shenoi Koes LLP v. Bank of America, et al., B281756 (2/4 1/31/18) (Willhite, Epstein Manella) (unpublished) is when the rights of the party "were substantially prejudiced by . . . the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title." Cal. Code Civ. Proc., section 1286(a)(5).
Appellants had made a motion in limine in arbitration to preclude Appellee from giving testimony "that contradicts judicial admissions in her pleadings." Appellants argued on appeal that when their motion was denied, the arbitrators somehow failed to consider an issue necessary to determine the controversy, because they failed to interpret a contract in light of binding judicial admissions. The Court of Appeal, however, didn't buy the argument, believing there never had been binding judicial admissions, and so the motion lacked merit. The judgment was affirmed.
See the case for a discussion of what constitutes a genuine judicial admission. It must be in the pleadings, not in testimony, and it cannot be taken from a prior proceeding.
Comments