Either Defendants Authorized Their Attorney To Agree To Binding Arbitration Or They Ratified The Agreement.
Defendants and Plaintiffs arbitrated their dispute, the arbitrator's award was in favor of Plaintiffs, and Defendants appealed the judgment confirming the award. Dean v. Amado, A147660 (1/3 2/20/19) (Jenkins, Siggins, Pollak) (not for publication).
Defendants' argument rested on the fact that their attorney, while agreeing in writing to arbitrate, did not believe he was agreeing to binding arbitration, and on Toal v. Tardif, 178 Cal.App.4th 1208 (2009), "in which the attorney's signed agreement to arbitrate, 'standing alone,' was not enough."
However, here, there was more. The parties had previously mediated, so it didn't make much sense to treat the arbitration as another attempt at ADR. The Defendants' attorney had indicated that the parties would not move forward with a trial, because they were going to "binding arbitration." The Defendants paid for the arbitration, and participated in the arbitration. The arbitrator told the parties he would act as a judge and issue a decision, and thereafter issued a final award.
And there was what the trial court characterized as a "credibility gap." If the Defendants' attorney always believed the arbitration was non-binding, he never said so, until Defendants received an unfavorable ruling.
In short, substantial evidence supported the ruling of the Superior Court judge. Affirmed.
Comments