A Question Of Timing: Case Explains How To Handle Costs Under Section 998 In An Arbitration.
Heimlich v. Shivji, S243029 (Cal. S.Ct. 5/30/19) (Corrigan, J.) is good news for practitioners, because it settles a timing issue, but it is no help to the hapless appellant who helped make law. Code of Civil Procedure section 998 authorizes an award of costs to a party that makes a pretrial settlement offer when the opponent rejects the offer and obtains a lesser result at trial. Heimlich v. Shivji holds, "a request for costs under section 998 is timely if filed with the arbitrator within 15 days of a final award." The question had been somewhat in doubt, because for most purposes, an arbitrator's power to act terminates once the final award issues.
However, the ruling makes sense, because section 998 applies to arbitration, as well as to litigation, and allowing a request for costs to be made under section 998 after the award is final puts arbitration and litigation on an equal footing. In a court case, a memorandum of costs is typically filed within 15 days of the final judgment, and the rule in Heimlich v. Shivji allows a parallel practice in arbitration. Furthermore, it is good policy not to require the party who will be asking for costs to make a settlement offer known prior to the final award, for fear it might influence the arbitrator in undesirable ways.
The issue in Heimlich v. Shivji arose because Shivji had a fee dispute with his attorney Heimlich, and Shivji made a settlement offer that Heimlich could not best in arbitration. Within 15 days after the final award issued, Shivji informed the arbitrator that he would request costs under section 998. Unfortunately for Shivji, the arbitrator concluded that after issuing the final award, he no longer had jurisdiction to take any further action in the matter. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award that did not include Shivji's requested costs. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Shivji's request was timely, and that the trial court could vacate the arbitrator's award because the arbitrator had "'refuse[ed] . . . to hear evidence material to the controversy'" when he rejected Shivji's attempt to raise the issue. (We blogged about the Court of Appeal opinion on June 15, 2017). And the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that Shivji's request was timely.
So that all sounds like it would be good for Shivji. But not so fast. The arbitrator made a mistake of law when he concluded that he lacked jurisdiction to rule on the post-award request for costs. His refusal to consider further evidence resulted from the mistake of law. And a mistake of law is not a basis for overturning an arbitration award. So hooray for Shivji and his attorney: they were right that Shivji's request was timely, and they made law in the California Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it won't help Shivji.
PHRASE OF THE DAY. Apparently Heimlich relied on the ancient doctrine of "functus officio." "At common law," the Supreme Court explained, "the issuance of an arbitration award was treated as functus officio, an act that terminates the actor's authority." Here, however, the doctrine only applied after the arbitrator's assigned duties ended -- and apparently those post-final award duties can now include awarding costs to a party that prevails under section 998. "Further, common law rules are subject to legislative revision." And pursuant to the California Arbitration Act, arbitrators do have some vestigial powers after issuing an award, so the doctrine of functus officio is not absolute. And section 998 "is intended to place parties to arbitration and court proceedings on equal footing and should be read to grant arbitration parties the same shield against premature disclosure of settlement offers that parties in court enjoy."
PRACTICE TIP. What should the practitioner do about making a request for costs under section 998 in an arbitration? The Court notes, "Shivji did not seek a stipulation that would allow the parties jointly to advise the arbitrator of a 998 offer." That could have been done before the final award was issued. If the arbitrator had then refused to accept evidence on an issue of costs that he had to decide pursuant to a joint stipulation, that might have been a solid ground for challenging the award, for squarely refusing to consider important evidence would have been more than a mistake of law. Of course, in the absence of a stipulation, the next person requesting costs within 15 days after issuance of the final award can present the arbitrator with a copy of Heimlich v. Shivji, and hope the arbitrator does not go off the rails.
Comments