An Arbitrator's Decision Is Not Ordinarily Reviewable For Error . . . Unless The Parties Agree That It Is In California State Courts.
In Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority v. Golden State Warriors, LLC, A157688 (1/5 8/18/20) (Jones, Simons, Needham), high stakes depended on whether a contract between the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority and Golden State Warriors terminated by nonrenewal or terminated by expiration. The arbitrator ruled that the contract could terminate by nonrenewal. The Golden State Warriors failed to renew the contract, the arbitrator ruled it terminated, and the dire consequence was that Golden State Warriors had to continue servicing debt incurred to renovate the arena till 2027.
Given the rule that an arbitrator's mistake of law or fact is ordinarily no basis to review or overturn it, my first question was why the Court of Appeal was reviewing whether the arbitration award had properly been confirmed by the Superior Court. The simple answer is that the parties had agreed that "either party may file an application to correct or vacate the arbitration award or an application for de novo review on all questions of law based on the arbitrator's finding[s] of fact (which are deemed for such purpose to be stipulated by the parties) . . ." The parties can "agree that legal errors are an excess of arbitral authority that is reviewable by the courts." Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 44 Cal. 4th 1334, 1347, 1361 (2008).
And so the Court of Appeal independently reviewed questions of law decided by the arbitrator. However, the review did not change the outcome, as the judgment was affirmed.
Comments