This is an appeal involving an international commercial arbitration. It was conducted pursuant to title 9.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is entitled, "Arbitration and Conciliation of International Commercial Disputes." (§ 1297.11 et seq.) At issue are the arbitration, not the conciliation, provisions. The arbitration provisions are found in sections 1297.11 through 1297.337.
This case involves appeals from a December 22, 2010 judgment following orders confirming three international commercial arbitration awards. The first arbitration award, issued May 3, 2010, was in favor of plaintiff, Comerica Bank, and against defendants: Greenlight Film & Television Inc.; Gary Howsam; GFT Circle Films, Inc.; Road Rage Films, Inc.; Janus Productions, Inc.; GFT Going Back Films, Inc.; GFT Heresy Films, Inc.; GFT/Redwood KOTN Films, Inc.; and GFT Redwood/Ignition Films, Inc. The second award, issued July 16, 2010, was in plaintiff‘s favor and against Mr. Howsam and Greenlight Film & Television Inc., and their lawyer, Charles Coate. The third award, issued July 19, 2010, and was in plaintiff‘s favor and against defendants and Mr. Coate. The trial court refused to vacate these three awards and confirmed them.
In the published portion of this opinion, we will discuss four issues. First, we will discuss at some length whether the arbitrator‘s failure to timely disclose an alleged disqualifying factor enumerated in section 1297.121 is a proper vacatur ground. Defendants assert the failure to timely disclose under sections 1297.121 and 1297.123 is a ground for vacating an international commercial arbitration award. Defendants rely on section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6); a statutory vacatur ground which requires an award be vacated when an arbitrator fails to timely disclose a potentially disqualifying circumstance. Citing section 1297.135, plaintiff argues this issue cannot even be raised on direct appeal from an order denying a vacatur motion. We agree with defendants that the issue may be raised on direct appeal after a vacatur motion is denied. But we hold the failure to timely disclose potential disqualifying circumstances, as required by sections 1297.121 and 1297.123, is not a ground for vacatur under section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6). Our ruling in this regard is limited to international commercial arbitrations conducted under section 1297.111 et seq.
Judge(s): Paul Turner
Jurisdiction: California Court of Appeals, Second District
Related Categories: ADR , Contracts , International
|Trial Court Judge(s)|
|Court of Appeals Judge(s)|
|Appellant Lawyer(s)||Appellant Law Firm(s)|
|Charles Coate||Costa Abrams & Coate LLP|
|Theresa Johnson||Costa Abrams & Coate LLP|
|Raymond Hamrick||Hamrick & Evans LLP|
|Donald Randolph||Randolph & Associates|
|Appellee Lawyer(s)||Appellee Law Firm(s)|
|Robert Addison, Jr.||Buchalter Nemer PC|
|Peter Bertrand||Buchalter Nemer PC|
|Efrat Cogan||Buchalter Nemer PC|
|Cheryl Lott||Buchalter Nemer PC|