Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,340 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
California State Categories







Comerica Bank v Howsam

Case No. B232749 (CA Dist. 2 Ct. App., Aug. 20, 2012)

I. INTRODUCTION



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)
Amy Hogue

 
Court of Appeals Judge(s)
Sandy Kriegler
Richard Mosk
Paul Turner

 
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

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
procedure. the parties, arbitrator strick explained in his march 5 letter that such amount was arbitration; there were errors in connection with alter ego and discovery issues; the 2009 order states that the arbitrator‘s fees shall be borne equally by claimant and impose monetary sanctions. the arbitrator found that mr. coate had ―engaged in abusive must be made if general [alliance] rules prohibiting formal discovery are to be deviated 3. analysis f.3d at pages 415-416 has no relationship to the facts in this case. here, defendants with plaintiff‘s argument that the disclosure issue cannot be raised on direct appeal. as award, that is not evidence of corruption, fraud or other undue means. in judicial the person is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. [¶] (f) the person has a 40 decision, but neither do we suppose that a trial judge can be required to sift through a host section 1284.51 limits judicial intervention to circumstances specified in the international supreme court. (howsam v. superior court (2005) 546 u.s. 1003.) costly and burdensome and antithetical to the policies underlying arbitration in the first mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. plaintiff discovered the fraud when being taken. but they never sought a stay from the arbitrator based on the fifth (2001-2002 reg. sess.) as amended august 27, 2001; and sen. rules com., off. of sen. calculated to take such prior overpayments into account. [¶] also, we note a terseness or reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitrator would be able to be on march 15 and 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a sanctions motion. on march 16, 2010, forth . . . above, howsam, greenlight, gft, gft-circle, road rage, janus, gft-going make deposits may be grounds for default. the relevant section is cited below. [¶] ‗14.3 ordered defendants to answer plaintiff‘s notice of arbitration and file any cross-claims recite the somewhat confusing events simultaneously transpiring in different forums. but a. vacatur defendants argue the awards must be vacated because the arbitrator failed to turner, p. j. state the reasons for the challenge; and must be made within seven (7) business days after arbitrability issues enforced].) further, the arbitration clause did not restrict the arbitrator international commercial arbitration provision prevents raising a disqualification issue in owed $28,987.50. on march 3, 2010, ms. tommaselli, the alliance‘s senior counsel 5 administering agency. the alliance‘s president, acting as ―the arbitral tribunal,‖ action are oppressive and costly, and review of intermediate rulings should await the final direct appeal from the judgment following an order confirming the three arbitration except on the grounds set forth in sections 1286.2 (to vacate) and 1286.6 (for the court of appeal affirmed the arbitration petition‘s dismissal based on the depositions was litigated and litigated again, and these depositions were ordered on november 20, 2009 and january 14, 2010, which document production shall be on february 2, 2010, the trial court denied defendants‘ terminating sanctions and section 1297.132 states, ―failing any agreement referred to in section 1297.131, a corporation, which denied that it was a party to the collective bargaining agreement, was a terminating sanctions and disqualification motion in the trial court. defendants sought did not prepare the award. they assert this demonstrates the award was written by including, but not limited to, any of the following instances . . . .‖7 evidentiary sanctions. respondents may file their opposition by january 13, 2010; preliminary hearing. which were not previously disclosed.‖ (§ 1297.123.) 7 possible imposition of default tomorrow for failure to pay such invoice, notwithstanding the matter to the parties on may 21, 2009. neither side objected or otherwise raised ms. tommaselli: ―we are in receipt of recent pleadings accepted for filing by the as to whether the arbitrator‘s manifest disregard of the law remains a basis for vacatur in 1297.121 is not a proper ground for a post-award judicial vacatur order under section [mr.] howsam and . . . greenlight [film and television inc.]‖ the arbitrator agreed to substantial discovery disputes; numerous stay motions filed by defendants; and fee mandate petition in this court challenging the trial court‘s february 2, 2010 order denying disclose the following: [¶] over the past years, i represented a client that maintained to disqualify plaintiff‘s counsel on misconduct grounds. on december 30, 2009, counsel shares of such amount based upon the allocation of fees in effect at the time of the award if the court determines any of the following: [¶] (1) the award was procured by of responsive pleadings. what followed was extensive arbitral litigation which included: [nonpub. order].) on march 15, 2010 defendants, other than mr. howsam and states code sections 201 through 208. does not file a motion, application or request for protective order within five (5) calendar on june 9, 2009, defendants were ordered to file responsive pleadings by june 30, to the costs and attorney fees awarded by the arbitrator, defendants have failed to provide respondents must obviously have the opportunity to propound their own formal cal.4th at pages 665, 669-670 and 675-680, the vacatur grounds listed in section 1286.2, [plaintiff], on which i was signatory was a proper subject of disclosure. after the lengthy on december 22, 2009, the arbitrator issued a further order concerning fees: on january 11, 2010, the other defendants filed a joinder in the december 24, joined in the petition of mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. the initial or he or she has been a material witness concerning it. [¶] (c) the person served as an issue of releasing a video recording of the november 2, 2007 restaurant meeting between authority to impose monetary discovery sanctions on mr. coate and his clients. (bak v. on november 6, 2007, plaintiff listed mr. strick as its first preference as the plaintiff was owed in excess of $20 million. the causes of action were for: motions and plaintiff‘s demurrer. portion of the opinion we will discuss the ex parte communication, the arbitrator‘s order the present case involves an international commercial arbitration. we conclude the one hand, and howsam, on the other hand, that any individuality or separateness 2. ex parte communications with the arbitrator provider fraud, or other undue means. as noted, the alliance sustained defendants‘ fee challenge arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the $12,000, was to pay an additional $16,987.50. defendants, who had made no deposit, cal.app.4th at p. 831.) undue means can include representation of a party where an not subject to appeal. there are two other provisions of california‘s international amendment or canadian law. further, on december 31, 2009, mr. howsam and attorney is operating under a conflict of interest. (id. at pp. 813, 825-833.) undue this dispute. the briefs are all premised on the assumption that this state‘s vacatur 39 such, shall, within 15 days, make a disclosure to the parties of any information which different films. the loans were paid to all of the foregoing corporate defendants except performed and the corresponding documents in the file for that time period. as such, the television inc., filed a motion to quash on absence of jurisdiction grounds. on 51 among the different disclosure duties listed in section 1281.9 are: current or prospective demurrer; and issued orders concerning depositions. 1290.) means ‗more than necessary; not proper; illegal,‘ and ‗denotes something wrong, domestic and international commercial arbitrations. as a result, the failure to comply notwithstanding the unlikely event the department of justice had the option of reindicting jurisdiction and powers to make rulings as to procedures for the conduct of the arbitration on january 6, 2010, the arbitrator denied the december 30, 2009 stay request: ―i including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the supra, 185 cal.app.4th at pp. 1447-1449; suh v. superior court (2010) 181 cal.app.4th litigated in the trial court on the assumption california‘s vacatur provisions applied to arbitrator. thus, any issue concerning a stay of the arbitration based on mr. howsam‘s defendants if they failed to pay his fees in advance; the arbitrator overbilled; the arbitrator issue to the arbitrator. (id at. p. 415-416.) thus, the arbitrator did not have the power to thousand dollars ($15,000.00) that does not appear to be in relation to any task, or request. arbitration, an arbitrator has the authority to find the facts, interpret the contract, and has been determined.‘ notwithstanding that this matter is an arbitration, respondents motions. resolved. [¶] the basis of the request for a reasonable stay of this proceeding until such amended august 27, 2001; sen. rules com., 3d reading analysis of sen. bill no. 475 misconduct because he failed to make timely mandatory disclosures, rendered a on direct appeal from an order denying a vacatur motion. we agree with defendants that new arbitrator shall be designated by the arbitral agent in the same manner as set forth discovery of the facts on which the challenge is based, but prior to the arbitrator‘s meantime, i invite [defendants‘] counsel to respond if they choose in advance of our arbitration alleges plaintiff has been damaged in a sum in excess of $13 million. the first settlement agreement, [plaintiff] shall provide such information only upon: (a) h. receives favorable acceptance from all parties, then, in the interest of expeditious arbitral dispute states a party who refuses to participate in a contractual arbitration is and before the stay was entered. voluntarily submit his claim to arbitration, await the outcome, and, if the decision is resignation, or failure or other inability of an arbitrator to act at any time after its petition for an accounting and a credit. it is further noted that [ms. starkey] on january 8, 2010, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. filed scheduling and conducting hearings; rulings on pleading challenges; addressing greenlight film & television inc. the loans were secured by the proceeds of the seven address the parties‘ contentions regarding the arbitrator‘s alleged duty to disclose his mr. howsam‘s deposition: ―[plaintiff] wishes to remind the tribunal that its request for an award may be vacated on the grounds specified in section 1286.2, subdivision have claimant‘s motion to compel production of documents and for monetary and of appeals explained: ―in george day const. v. united brotherhood of carpenters and at 1475 (citing ficek v. southern pacific co., 338 f.2d 655, 657 (9th cir. 1964)).‖ mr. coate‘s allegations. the sole evidence concerning the letter is in mr. coate‘s determined at the beginning of this proceeding that under [alliance rules], arbitrator fees may vacate an award if it determines that ‗[the] arbitrators exceeded their powers and the cb accounts or the proceeds thereof. i no longer represent the client, do not retain award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the paid to ―keep her quiet‖; told mr. goldstein to ―stay quiet and develop ‗amnesia[ ]‘‖; told powers: ―[t]he court shall vacate the award if the court determines . . . : [¶] (4) the greenlight film & television inc.; gary howsam; gft circle films, inc.; road rage fraud or other undue means. alliance rule 14.4 sets forth the procedures in the case of a alleged corporate alter ego, sharon hill, was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement. compel arbitration. mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. reasoned they following confirmation of an international commercial arbitration award. as we will failure to disclose a section 1297.121 disqualifying ground is not listed as a basis for a to stay this arbitral proceeding until such substantive motions are adjudicated and finally held on february 12, 2010. on february 16, 2010, the arbitrator issued his ruling on per hour. mr. howsam was indicted on november 27, 2007, on federal bank fraud and signatory authority on any such account and have no ongoing business or other allegations. we will discuss this issue in the published portion of the opinion. and, canadian law. (societe nat. ind. aero. v. u.s. dist. court (1987) 482 u.s. 522, 539-540; tribunal in connection with any challenge to any privilege or legal prohibition asserted by march 11, 2010, our supreme court denied the review petition of mr. howsam and substantive motions before the superior court . . . .‖ foreclosed from challenging an award. (a/s ganger rolf v. zeeland transp., ltd. the return of the list in rule 6.2, whichever occurs earlier, the arbitral agent shall the arbitrator‘s findings issued after the default hearing. that record reflects and/or summaries of the testimony anticipated to be elicited from each of its witnesses; digesting varying views]; frazier v. citifinancial corp. (11th cir. 2010) 604 f.3d 1323, arbitrator within the meaning of section 1286.2, subdivisions (a), (b) or (c).‖ (a.m. rather than los angeles. california law determined the scope of depositions; not 14 first time mr. coate, counsel for mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc., provided in this title, or applicable federal law.‖ 2. alter ego (1993-1994 reg. sess.) may 10, 1994; sen. com. on judiciary, off. of sen. floor respondents wish to reply they may do so by january 25, 2010. unless and until a stay is require procedures not regularly provided for will nevertheless be provided for here, then reg. sess.) as amended august 26, 1994.) they never discuss international commercial plaintiff and respondent, series of stays. on april 27, 2009, the indictment naming mr. howsam was dismissed arbitration and the arbitrator entered their default. an uncontested award was entered. 47 the fees at 75 percent to defendants and 25 percent to plaintiff. the arbitrator noted he declaration filed in support of the motion to vacate the award of mr. howsam and anticipated lengthy arbitration hearings. on march 3, 2010, ms. tommaselli, the february 28, 2010 the arbitrator directed each side to post $15,000 in fees as an advance error has barred an employee subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement from sanctions against mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. and their counsel, stay the arbitration until april 14, 2011. april 14, 2011 is the date when the criminal challenge and copied the letter to the arbitrator. films; the funds were used interchangeably by all of the subsidiaries; and mr. howsam statutory right to appeal, that intent must be clearly stated. ―the right of appeal is of such a person meets any of the following conditions: [¶] (i) the person is or has been not be grounds for disqualification given the attenuated nature of the relationship. authority over the account; and on march 19, 2010, while responding to their for cause and stipulation, stayed the arbitration. on june 9, 2009, the arbitrator ordered the filing side to post $15,000. thus, on february 28, 2010, plaintiff, which had already deposited of the arbitrator. [the alliance‘s] rule 3.6 states, ‗[p]rior to the appointment of the stated, ―an order by the court directing that a hearing pursuant to this section be held is been raised before the arbitrator]; mossman v. city of oakdale (2009) 170 cal.app.4th on september 21, 2009, the arbitrator issued rulings concerning: the scheduling motion to compel arbitration. on february 14, 2006, the motion of mr. howsam and arbitrator‘s disclosure duties: ―[a]ll persons whose names have been submitted for i. attorney fees been associated with another who has participated in the matter during such association, disqualification upon grounds specified in section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of bloom sons co. operated three shoe stores in santa clara county. l. bloom sons co. exchange (1980) 103 cal.app.3d 853, 860-861 [―absent a showing of prejudice, even if stayed pursuant to section 1297.82.3 equal split between [defendants] and [plaintiff] on a prospective basis, and ruled that a requested, the parties should also be made aware of the time that you expect to spend defendants argue that the award was secured through corruption, fraud or other arbitrators in international commercial arbitrations; some of which materially deviate stay discovery. motion for stay is denied. however, respondents are granted leave sections 1297.121 through 1297.125 impose disclosure requirements on 21 83, 93 [―‗[i]t is well settled that a party may not sit idle through an arbitration proceeding pacific center, inc., supra, 203 cal.app.4th at pp. 358-361; greenspan v. ladt, llc, apart from cases like pearson dental supplies, inc. v. superior court¸ supra, 48 filed with the arbitrator. included in that massive missing number of documents are the precluding review on appeal from a final judgment would be a dramatic and wholly fraud or injustice. [citations.] the proper forum for that determination is, of course, a issued july 19, 2010, and was in plaintiff‘s favor and against defendants and mr. coate. import of section 1297.17 is to abrogate the arbitrator disclosure duties under sections challenge or replacement of an arbitrator will be final and the reasons for such decision make the cost of the proceeding prohibitively expensive . . . .‖ on november 20, 2009, 1970, c. e – 10) and section 60 of the evidence act of ontario.)‖ defendants further bloom sons co.] is, in reality, also the contract of bloom‘s salinas, inc. [plaintiff] begs also, defendants argue that the misspelling of the arbitrator‘s name is evidence he arbitrator. on november 5, 2007, mr. howsam was arrested by the federal bureau of their core documents by december 11, 2009; compelling production of non-core in the court of appeal of the state of california [plaintiff‘s] counsel copied the arbitrator on a letter to [the alliance] responding to that the board of adjustment had authority to decide the arbitrability of pacesetter‘s findings. (hotels nevada, llc v. l.a. pacific center, inc. (2012) 203 cal.app.4th 336, the matters specified in mr. coate‘s declaration do not constitute corruption, withdrew from the arbitration. because they withdrew, they have forfeited the right to opinion, we reversed the december 28, 2004 order denying the motion to compel not occur within the period prescribed to assert a challenge under [alliance] rule 6.6.1.‖ iv. discussion defendant, l. bloom sons co., denied the existence of any relationship with bloom‘s 14, 2005, b180285) [nonpub. order].) on september 15, 2005, in an unpublished court (2010) 51 cal.4th 1, 5.) however, the abrogation of the right to appeal must be files; paid mr. goldstein‘s living expenses and attorneys fees once plaintiff discovered favored, number two, the person next most favored, etc. 6.3 within seven (7) days of the fee dispute. on march 17, 2010, she wrote: ―in response to your request for a retroactive under the distribution agreement or this agreement, including, without limitation, any were inconvenient to defense counsel; it should not be videotaped; and it was contractual arbitration; names of all parties to prior noncollective bargaining cases in on april 10, 2006, the written order granting the motion to compel arbitration and ―clients‖ in his response to defendants‘ challenges. defendants‘ challenges to the timely disclose a basis for disqualification. defendants rely on the following facts: the collectively, are responsible for 50 [percent] of the arbitrator‘s fees. the order as noted, in order to preserve an issue when seeking vacatur, the issue must be canada on march 12, 15 and 16, 2010; scheduled hearings on in limine motions and procedural issues next week. please let me know in advance if you have any agenda declines to exercise the option to replace the arbitrator as referred to in rules 6.6.2 and language in mr. coate‘s declaration. defendants have failed to demonstrate the award arbitrator in accordance with this rule. if no proposed arbitrator on the alternate list we have carefully reviewed the prejudice. from the arbitration. the sole record provided by defendants of the arbitration itself were greenlight film & television inc., filed a stay request with the arbitrator. mr. coate were entitled to compel arbitration under the assignment notices. on february 7, 2006, s133354) [nonpub. order]; greenlight film & television inc. v. superior court (april had expended 53.25 hours at a billing rate of $300 per hour for a total due of $15,975. amended complaint. the basis of the seven defendants‘ motion to compel arbitration same is true in this case. carpenters 46, supra, 96 f.3d at pages 415-416 is not address time that has already earned, but rather seeks a large advance retainer of fifteen fifty dollars ($5,250). arbitrator strick is directed to refund the parties their respective discovery while such substantive matters are pending.‖ on december 31, 2009, excess of $13 million and attached the first amended complaint. as noted, the first award; the award is executed by ―stephen j. strick‖ who was unknown to defendants; the to pay fees and the overbilling issues. the challenge, to decide on the challenge. if a challenge is based upon the grounds set recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards of june 10, 1958. commonly the defendant filed an affidavit in response to the petition to compel arbitration. mr. goldstein‘s spouse in order that he remain silent about the forgeries; greenlight film the judgment is affirmed. plaintiff, comerica bank, inc., shall recover its costs the arbitrator‘s fees that this deposit is intended to cover. based on the extraordinary gary howsam et al., 2010, the arbitrator imposed $1,641,367.17 in costs against defendants as follows: fees the alliance‘s international arbitration rules state in part: ―6.6 an arbitrator may the alter ego issue. (id. at pp. 412, 414-416.) the court of appeals found there was no commercial arbitration statutes which state the superior court‘s decision is final and not and a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail prosecution of discovery by claimant of this matter under the circumstances of this case california (1992) 963 f.2d 238, 241.) here, the arbitrator possessed the power to provided to [defendants] for amounts that they previously paid in excess of such equal contrary to law and compounds claimant‘s violations. we object to such efforts while depending on the circumstances, arbitrators can decide alter ego issues. (local joint fee requested by the arbitrator must provide specific reasons for the challenge, including fees. the outstanding balance was $3,975. in addition, the arbitrator had ordered each defendants assert the failure to timely disclose under sections 1297.121 and 1297.123 is on march 8, 2010, plaintiff‘s counsel objected to any further delay of u.s. ___, ___ [130 s.ct. 1758, 1768, fn. 3].) the federal courts of appeals are divided production of an equal number of films; mr. howsam signed the loan agreements on 4. the billing errors apply to international depositions; the dates were unilaterally selected by plaintiff and disqualification against [plaintiff] as well as the companion pending petition for review cal.4th 529, 537.) 37 distribution agreements were submitted to plaintiff prior to the funding of the loans by describing any documents for which privilege or a legally imposed restriction prohibiting order. [plaintiff] is permitted to disclose the information as required by the court order assert this as a ground for vacatur. (moncharsh v. heily & blaise, supra, 3 cal.4th at pp. arbitration and mediation service rule granting arbitrator authority to decide arbitrability international commercial arbitration statutes except as specified therein. section 1297.51 presented to the arbitrator. (moncharsh v. heily & blase, supra, 3 cal.4th at pp. 30-31; of improper specifications in search of the few arguably proper ones.‖]; wegner et al., deposed. and defendants took the position that mr. howsam must be deposed in canada and by reference section 1281.9, are relevant because they are referred to in the section cal.4th at pp. 30-31; mossman v. city of oakdale, supra, 170 cal.app.4th at p. 93; reed denied, defendants appealed. and, in an unpublished opinion, we reversed the order alliance had originally directed 9 defendants to pay 75 percent of the arbitrator‘s fees. on loan and security agreements with defendants, except for mr. howsam and greenlight through the conclusion of the matter, including the hearing and issuance of a final award. reference to clients was made in the arbitrator‘s march 19, 2010 response to defendants‘ liable for greenlight‘s wrongful actions alleged herein. therefore, even though days of his receipt of [plaintiff‘s] notice unless the parties mutually agree to extend such here, the legislature never clearly stated an intent to abrogate the right to appeal a conducted under section 1297.111 et seq. arbitrator‘s discovery orders. this case involves appeals from a december 22, 2010 judgment following orders h. statement of decision video recording could be released. the video recording was of the meeting between propriety, fairness and reasonableness of the fee requested. such challenge must be timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. however, exceeds that allowable in the case of a default judgment. to begin with, defendants have party has a right to challenge a sitting arbitrator. under such circumstances, the arbitral litigated in the trial court, court of appeal and the california and united states supreme interlocutory orders that are not immediately appealable, but are subject to review on court of law.‖ (ibid.) every attorney stipulated the arbitration confirmation and vacatur provisions of the rights hearing. former welfare and institutions code section 366.26, subdivision (k) 3 cal.4th at p. 11.) the deposition orders were not beyond the arbitrator‘s powers. respondents so that claimant is responsible for 50 [percent] and respondents, the arbitrator agreed to immediately adjust the fee computation in compliance with costa abrams & coate, llp, charles m. coate and theresa e. johnson for as previously requested, but further to the leave granted to move for a stay of this while the disqualification request was being processed, ms. starkey ruled on the arbitration demand served by plaintiff attached the first amended complaint with its alter were overpaid by [defendants] are properly allocated and that the invoice is accurately provisions of these rules or any order of the arbitrator, the arbitrator may declare that defendants rely on section 1286.2, subdivision(a)(6)(a) and (b) which, as we on november 20, 2009, the arbitrator ordered mr. howsam submit to a ―[plaintiff] and [defendants] shall bear . . . arbitrator fees equally (i.e. fifty percent of at p. 37; recommendation and study relating to arbitration, (dec. 1960) 3 cal. law after the international commercial arbitration provisions were adopted in 1988. (stats. ground for vacating the award under section 1286.2, subdivision (a). (moore v. first behalf of the seven corporations; and the agreements were designed to provide production at p. 703.) defendants argue the arbitrator received a letter from plaintiff‘s counsel during the filed by defendants, other than mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc., was designation as arbitrators or conciliators, or who have been appointed or designated as in response to march 12 and 15, 2010 challenges, the arbitrator referred to a if a second or subsequent arbitrator is similarly replaced, the arbitral agent may in the subject to appeal. (§§ 1297.117 [review of disputes over arbitrator selection] 1297.143 films, inc.; janus productions, inc.; gft going back films, inc.; gft heresy films, corruption, fraud or undue means. (pacific vegetable oil corp. v. c.s.t., ltd. (1946) 29 subpoena duces tecum was denied on mootness grounds after judge wright ruled the relationship with cb. i am not now nor have i ever been a customer of cb or had any does not comply with the provisions of rule 9.1. if any such arbitrator is removed, the assem. com. on appropriations, analysis of sen. bill no. 475 (2001-2002 reg. sess.) as decide whether the collective bargaining agreement terms would apply to the new store with an arbitration administrator. and the communication was perfectly legitimate. the parties for rating in accordance with rule 6.2. the arbitral agent shall then designate an alter ego of [l. bloom sons co.]. [¶] a corporation‘s separate identity will be disqualification motion. in addition, the trial court denied the motion filed december 31, ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.‖ which the arbitrator has served; cases where the arbitrator is a party arbitrator; and the october 25, 2004, defendants, other than mr. howsam and greenlight film & television opposing counsel.‖ (fn. omitted.) in addition, on february 8, 2010, the arbitrator: mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. had been filed on april 13, 2010, mr. howsam: complimented mr. goldstein for one of the forgeries, referring to it as party may agree to the challenge and substitution of a new arbitrator; the arbitrator may greenlight film & television inc. were filed in the trial court on december 24, 2009. on sections 1297.11 through 1297.337 were adopted in 1988. none of them even address for purposes of clarity, we will set forth the events in strict chronological order. hamrick & evans, llp and a. raymond hamrick for defendant and appellant to the arbitrator and to the arbitral agent. such notification shall be in writing and shall 1291.) defendants assert the arbitrator‘s failure to disclose his signatory authority over promptly upon receipt of the notice of arbitration, the arbitral agent shall transmit to february 28, 2010 invoice which requires the parties in the above referenced matter to therefrom any names of arbitrators unacceptable to that party. the remaining names on arbitrations. complicating matters though, section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6), which contention that the award resulted from a manifest disregard of the law. expected to cove the 12 hearing days in april. [¶] . . . the parties and the arbitrator arbitrator should have advised appellants‘ counsel of the ex parte communication and that specifically states that such fee allocation become effective after all deposits have been minor child residing in such person‘s household, has a financial interest in the subject greenlight film & television inc., filed a joinder in the march 12, 2010 disqualification is immoral if not illegal. see black‘s law dictionary 1697 (rev. 4th ed. 1968) (‗undue‘ and greenlight film & television inc. filed a disqualification motion. the challenge was indicted. the remaining defendants joined in the stay motion. on january 21, 2008, the defendants argue the trial court did not have the authority to impose post-award post-judgment appeal: ―the phrase, ‗not an appealable order,‘ has long been applied to referred to as the new york convention, it is codified in this country at title 9 united arbitrator, the arbitral agent shall make such decisions regarding procedural matters as parties later stipulated to extend the stay pending the outcome of mr. howsam‘s submitted within forty-five (45) days of the transmission of the final invoice after the not an appealable order, but may be the subject of review by extraordinary writ.‖ (stats. on february 28, 2010, the arbitrator calculated his paid and unpaid fees. he had depleted and that a final allocation of the fees will be done at the conclusion of the was video recorded. remedial and in doubtful cases the doubt should be resolved in favor of the right do not owe the money. defendants have failed to show that any of the claimed errors mr. howsam‘s deposition: ―previous orders with respect to the ordered and agreed 26 cal.app.4th at p. 1386.) mr. coate‘s clients, mr. howsam and greenlight film & arbitrator‘s billings. mr. coate complained to ms. starkey about the alleged terseness of unfavorable, then challenge the authority of the arbitrator to act.‘ george day, 722 f.2d lack of description for many of the billing entries, and unfortunately are forced to query noticed, this tribunal will favorably consider an award of default and/or sanctions against conduct of each of the howsam parties as alleged herein were known to, authorized by, receipt [plaintiff‘s] notice, that he intends to seek a protective order; (b) h. goldstein corruption, fraud or other undue means because a potential default was authorized by the compensatory damages in plaintiff‘s favor against all defendants in the sum of shall be discussed later. 8 pursuant to california rules of court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is prehearing briefs, or any or all of the above. additionally, in the interest of justice, the [¶] 6.6.6 the arbitral agent, in his/her sole discretion, may remove any arbitrator who 46 by plaintiff; and the default award misspelled the arbitrator‘s name. in the published one‖]; prudential reinsurance co. v. superior court (1992) 3 cal.4th 1118, 1148 [―this employment; matters specified in the ethics standards for neutral arbitrators in and expenses would be split 3/4 - 1/4 between [defendants and plaintiff], but that compensatory damages not less than $20 million; interest; punitive damages; an court of appeal, held in language relied upon by defendants in our case: ―[plaintiff ] disqualification upon grounds specified in section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of 6 gft circle films inc.; road rage films inc.; janus productions inc.; gft going back and belief, comerica alleges that there now exists, and at all times material hereto has obtaining a hearing on the merits of a claim based on such right has exceeded his or her television inc. moved to stay all arbitration proceedings. the parties stipulated to a document and privilege log production: ―on or before february 22, 2010 each of the were denied. on january 5, 2011, notice of entry of the two orders confirming the 31 ―absent an express and unambiguous limitation in the contract or the submission to financial corp., it is unclear whether the manifest disregard of the law ground remains of hearings on discovery disputes; the approval of a deposition subpoena of mosk, j. following instances: [¶] (a) the person has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a blase, supra, 3 cal.4th at pp. 30-31 [illegality issue would have been forfeited had it not plaintiff. court, a litigant must have raised the point before the arbitrator. (moncharsh v. heily & continued prosecution of this discovery with a motion for terminating sanctions and a but such procedures shall not be permitted to delay the orderly and speedy processes of on september 3, 2009, the scheduled hearing was held. also on september 3, that such departure had prejudiced the rights of the buyer.‖]; manson v, wilcox (1903) advance of tomorrow‘s call.‖ refuse to attend his deposition; this caused plaintiff‘s counsel to unnecessarily travel to one of plaintiff‘s attorneys explained: ―[their] first choice, [mr.] polichar, stated that ‗i federal court. (wachovia securities llc v. brand (4th cir. 2012) 671 f.3d 472, 481 & alter ego issues which were directly posited in the first amended complaint. having & television inc. and the seven corporations which received the loans were never a. overview forth in section 1297.121, and the superior court determines that the facts support a personal relationship with any of its officers or employees. [¶] in my opinion the facts arbitrator termed ―pre-sales‖ documents. the arbitrator described the pre-sales consisted of: executed distribution agreements; ―deal memos‖; and assignment notices failure to meet the deposit requirements and the consequences of such failure. the mr. goldstein to shred documents; and transferred his assets to his wife‘s name after may 25, 2010, the trial court denied the motion of mr. howsam and greenlight film & making false statements in loan documents charges. as noted, the fraud and loan arbitrator failed to resolve all necessary issues; and the award was returned in manifest the borrowers represented the pre-sales for each film was accurate; the borrowers subdivision (a) are controlling. (moncharsh v. heily & blase, supra, 3 cal.4th at p. [section] 170.4(d) ‗a disqualified judge shall have no power to act in any proceeding after at any time after the commencement of the arbitration process, the arbitral agent or the this is an appeal involving an international commercial arbitration. it was b. applicable disclosure provisions as noted, in 1988, the legislature expressly stated international commercial despite several messages and [e-mails], long outstanding invoices for arbitrator fees have ―‗creative thinking‘‖; directed mr. goldstein and an assistant to forge signatures on other raising the appropriateness of an order setting a parental termination rights hearing in a analysis of sen. bill no. 1638 (1993-1994 reg. sess.) as amended august 16, 1994; sen. arbitrator may permit formal depositions or other appropriate discovery of information, would be burdensome and harassing. further, mr. howsam and greenlight incurred on appeal from defendants: greenlight film & television inc.; gary howsam; 2 the arbitration.‖ the assignment notices explicitly state they are governed by california from any of the following: [¶] (1) from a judgment. . . .‖ defendants argue the trial court should have issued a statement of decision as denying the petition to compel arbitration. (comerica bank v. gft circle films, inc., concerns to the matters contained in the disclosure until the current challenge, which did defendants assert the arbitrator exceeded his powers by making various discovery rulings. within 30 days. the arbitrator selected january 10, 2008, as the date for a further issues concerning: document production; fee allocation; and deposition duration between mr. howsam and mr. goldstein. on november 23, 2009, united states district as a basis for a corruption, fraud or other undue means finding. (maaso v. signer, supra, resolved. in addition, the arbitrator ordered, ―counsel for each of the parties shall contact ms. starkey, the arbitral agent. as noted, mr. coate requested a reallocation of fees and 29 investigation on bank fraud charges. the charges arose out of the loan transactions at consideration for appointment or designation as arbitrators or conciliators, or who have pursuant to california rules of court, rules 3.1702(c)(1) and 8.278(c)(1). resulted in an award being procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. has received the most favorable acceptance on the lists returned by the parties. if two or in section 170.1 for disqualification of a judge.‖ one of the grounds for disqualification the first amended complaint filed on september 7, 2004, contains the following december 15, 2009. [¶] we also note that the lion‘s share of the invoice does not television inc., submitted to the arbitrator‘s jurisdiction. therefore, the arbitrator had the of a judge is if a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt whether the notice of arbitration, a copy of the [independent film & television alliance] rules, and 2009, defendants served amended admissions requests. defendants‘ motion to quash a related costs and expenses among the parties will be made at the close of the proceeding.‖ [citations.]‘ (in re matthew c. [(1993)] 6 cal.4th [386,] 394.)‖ (in re s.b. (2009) 46 salinas, inc. the plaintiff argued the new store operated by bloom‘s salinas, inc. was alliance. on may 21, 2009, mr. strick made the following disclosure: ―i wish to 56 to the noticing of these depositions as they intentionally violate canadian law as it applies loans. the first amended complaint contains extensive alter ego allegations.2 any evidence the legislature intended the 1994 and 2001 enactments apply to law. defendants themselves sought to take three depositions and engaged in the use of related charges. * case of a international commercial arbitration must be made within 15 days of the division five fees.) further, mr. coate argued that the description of work performed was terse and nothing in mr strick‘s resume stated he was a member of the state bar of california. on arbitrator. plaintiff struck defendants‘ first choice to act as the arbitrator, bruce polichar. plaintiff‘s favor on all its contract claims. the arbitrator found: plaintiff entered into was created by howsam as part of scheme to escape liability for the actions of defendant shall [plaintiff] be obligated to obtain a protective order.‖ the rights of the party complaining were prejudiced thereby.‖]; cothron v. interinsurance used the loan proceeds for matters unrelated to film production. finally, the arbitrator discretion, suspend or continue the arbitral proceedings during the pendency of the the actual charges disputed, and, if applicable, supporting documentation. such [parts iv(d) and e(1) and (2) are to be published.] since, it is more the more specific statute, section 1297.121 is the controlling disclosure one of the litigants.‘ on that basis, [plaintiff] elected to strike mr. polichar. therefore mr. goldstein was cooperating with the federal bureau of investigation and the meeting comerica is informed and believes that gft was not incorporated until after most or all instance. however, when the claimant is a bank employing a law firm with unlimited these contentions do not provide a basis for reversal on direct appeal from a judgment proceedings. on february 8, 2010, the arbitrator granted plaintiff‘s motion to compel 9 com. on judiciary, analysis of sen. bill no. 1638 (1993-1994 reg. sess.) as amended 701, 702-703 (retail clerks, supra). in that case, the plaintiff was a union which had were conducted in violation of canadian law; the dates were unilaterally selected and the above. we do not believe that such a serious matter can be addressed in such a the time represented to be expended in connection with numerous entries. it is noted that appeal from a subsequent final judgment. ‗generally speaking, under the one final 1297.121 and 1297.123, is not a ground for vacatur under section 1286.2, subdivision denies a litigant a hearing on an unwaiveable important statutory right. (pearson dental mr. howsam and mr. goldstein engaged in a sophisticated fraudulent conspiracy 2. disclosure duties under california‘s international commercial arbitral law with the sections 1281.9 and 1281.91 disclosure obligations are not a ground for vacatur order. arbitrator. been defined in any federal case of which we are aware, it clearly connotes behavior that contains extensive alter ego allegations. (see fn. 2, supra.) on october 27, 2004, those parties of any information which might cause their impartiality to be questioned the grounds: they did not describe with particularity the papers to be produced; the commercial arbitration statutes. section 1297.161 provides that the arbitrator may rule arbitration awards involves an extraordinarily complex series of events. the defaulted arbitrations were not subject to sections 1280 to 1284.2. (§ 1297.17.) sections 1281.9 controls over the more general.‖].) this is particularly persuasive given the absence of in section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(1), is that perpetrated by the arbitrator or a party. only plaintiff‘s counsel. no evidence support this assertion. even if plaintiff prepared the defendants and appellants. organized in the six general categories identified by [plaintiffs‘] counsel. counsel shall assigned their rights to distributor payments so as to satisfy the loan indebtedness; and the the two statutory schemes because it applies to international commercial arbitrations. were each individually assessed an initial $1,500 charge. the arbitrator‘s rate was $300 later than january 13, 2010. [¶] i would like to hold a hearing next week to consider plaintiff rather than defendants. the forged documents induced plaintiff to make the amount to misconduct of the arbitrators sufficient to vacate the award it must be shown appeal from a judgment of the superior court of los angeles county, amy d. from raising the issue. further, defendants have failed to sustain their burden of showing consequently jointly and severally liable to comerica for the conduct, or lack of conduct, 451.)‖ (in re matthew c., supra, 6 cal.4th at p. 394, fn. omitted.) turning to other cal.app.3d 440, 450 [―an award will not be vacated for any error that does not prejudice arbitration is immune from appellate review. a litigant remains free to raise the failure to appear for the deposition on the scheduled dates; and video recording the deposition 2009. on june 30, 2009, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. demurred on march 30, 2010, ms. starkey, in her role as the arbitral agent, issued a three- on may 9, 2006, mr. goldstein settled with plaintiff. in 2002, after being sued by 1994 reg. sess.) as amended august 9, 1994; sen. com. on judiciary, 3d reading have been presented to the arbitrator during the arbitration hearing. but defendants as we noted in countrywide financial corp. v. bundy (2010) 187 cal.app.4th 234, 250, he would be issuing an amended arbitration award resolving the stop notice claim. in the powers. (greenspan v. ladt, llc (2010) 185 cal.app.4th 1413, 1447-1449 [judicial mr. goldstein; the discovery cut-off date; the dates for exchanges of expert witness entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the defendant, l. bloom sons co. l. offenses involving similar loans obtained by howsam from comerica bank.‖ a post-judgment appeal. certainly, a superior court order addressing a disqualification redwood/ignition films inc. any request for attorney fees on appeal shall be pursued the difficulty in reciting the procedural scenario after mr. howsam‘s indictment at plaintiff‘s counsel‘s offices; and numerous unspecified motions had not yet been ruled [alliance‘s] rules.‖ the omitted footnote states, ―the january 13 invoice is reduced by 15 defendants‘ argument it was improper for plaintiff to communicate directly with the controversy submitted‘ . . . , it may not substitute its judgment for that of the films. the primary ―collateral‖ were foreign distributers‘ minimum licensing fees. the filed a separate mandate petition in this court. the second petition challenged the trial as noted, at 5:10 a.m. on february 23, 2010, in an e-mail from new york city, the timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. however, television inc.; cpc communications, inc. is sole shareholder of greenlight film & disclosure duty is mandatory. (§ 1297.121.) the duty to disclose is continuing, ―from agreed to arbitrate under the alliance‘s arbitration rules with its broad grant of arbitrable ms. starkey‘s march 17, 2010 determination. the arbitrator also stated he has fully dispute.‖ the authority to make a ―final determination of all matters in dispute‖ includes in several united states supreme court opinions. (see pearson dental supplies, inc. v. customary deposits in [an alliance] arbitration. given the exceptional amount requested, impartial, including all of the following: [¶] (1) the existence of any ground specified circumstances with fast moving substantive challenges being pursued by both sides. adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of the howsam parties, on the one 20 representative in the proceeding. [¶] (iii) the person is or expects to be nominated as an states, ―in matters governed by this title, no court shall intervene except where so as there are no disputed facts, we review this contention de novo. (haworth v. superior certified for publication with the exception of parts iv(c)(5) and iv(e)(3)-(i). hear defendants‘ objections to the proposed video recording of mr. howsam‘s deposition. the arbitrator did not exceed his powers by deciding the alter ego issue. on the scheme; destroyed evidence of the fraud as to one of the films and shredded his own name, address and resume of each proposed arbitrator. [¶] 6.2 within five (5) business plaintiff error had been committed, the lower court was required to affirm the award.‖]; davey be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted. 26 plaintiff argues that after the indictment was dismissed, no stay request based the fifth for a total of $30,000. on february 28, 2010, plaintiff, which had already deposited the arbitration was conducted under the alliance‘s rules for international mr. coate‘s challenge. in response, mr. coate clarified he was concerned about the revision com. rep. (1961) p. g-55.) dictum in one case arising from an international mr. goldstein and mr. howsam. in preparation for that hearing, an assistant united arbitration statute, section 1297.161. executive bd. v. royal center, inc. (9th cir. 1986) 796 f.2d 1159, 1164-1165; see mundi court judge otis d. wright ordered the video recording unsealed over mr. howsam‘s will not be communicated.‖ under section 1297.134 is final and is not subject to appeal.‖ 42 settlement agreement, any terms or conditions contained therein, or facts underlying the motions. (greenlight film & television inc. v. superior court (mar. 12, 2010, b222454) on february 11, 2010, defendants requested reconsideration of the arbitrator‘s motion to compel arbitration. on october 27, 2004, mr. howsam and greenlight film & bank of san luis obispo (2000) 22 cal.4th 782, 789; moncharsh v. heily & blase, supra, and/or ratified by the other howsam parties, and each of them. [¶] . . . on information denying the motion to quash filed by mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. arbitrator wanted to verify if, under the alliance rules, he had to disclose the fact he had 11 failure to properly develop this argument warrants its rejection. (cahill v. san diego gas january 21, 2008, litigated a motion to quash and resolved other jurisdictional issues; and in the published portion of this opinion, we will discuss four issues. first, we will documents previously ordered produced by this tribunal pursuant to orders dated discussion with alliance officials concerning his ―clients‖ and the duty to disclose. the communications, inc.; greenlight film & television inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary award is secured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. fraud, as that term is used on march 19, 2010, the arbitrator responded to mr. coate‘s march 12, 2010 section 1297.17, do not apply to international commercial arbitrations for the following film & television inc. objected to three document categories in the deposition notice on amendment rights or canadian law was presented to the arbitrator. we agree with it later directly contacted the film distributors. the person is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.‖ codefendant, zcon builders, was subject to an arbitration agreement with a union. the is no evidence of fraud. the arbitrators billing errors were corrected; defendants have proceedings. [defendants] petition for an immediate accounting and credit of fees is necessity to resubmit any list of names to the parties. [¶] 6.6.4 if the arbitral agent prejudiced because his stay requests were denied defendants argue the arbitrator‘s threat to enter their default if they failed to pay power, defendants cannot now claim the arbitrator erred in his making his alter ego cal. practice guide: civil trials and evidence (the rutter group 2011) ¶ 16:151, p. 16- arbitration based on mr. howsam‘s fifth amendment privilege. but that motion, based sanctions. all awards were certified pursuant to article i of the convention on the abundance of caution.‖ discovery issues. the november 20, 2009 order extended to: the scope of admissions 2010, ms. starkey reduced a january 13, 2010 invoice by 11.25 hours ($3,375) and 1994, ch. 1202, § 1, pp. 7420-7421.) further, section 1281.9 was enacted in 2001; well december 30, 2009, requesting a stay of discovery, or leave to file a motion for leave to on november 2, 2007, mr. howsam and mr. goldstein met in a local restaurant. made no reservation of its right to reserve the issue of arbitrability for initial forfeited this issue by withdrawing from the arbitration. in order to challenge an award in cal.app.4th 40, 73-80; otay river constructors v. san diego expressway (2008) 158 supplies, inc. v. superior court (2010) 48 cal.4th 665, 669-670, 675-680; see shahinian distributors. the first amended complaint alleges that certain documents that were filed a supplemental challenge premised on the arbitrator‘s march 19, 2010 reference to first amended complaint; granted the motion to strike punitive damage allegations from american home assurance co. v. societe commerciale toutelectric (2002) 104 favor of arbitration. (pacificcare health systems, inc. v. book (2003) 538 u.s. 401, 407, 3. the requirement that fees be posted in advance of the arbitral hearing on the merits hogue, judge. affirmed. burdensome and oppressive for the deposition to exceed one day. as noted, mr. howsam either: (a) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for on december 24, 2009, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. filed 2010, we denied the mandate petition of mr. howsam and greenlight film & television denied defendant‘s stay motion; ordered mr. howsam to be deposed in toronto, ontario, billing challenge. as noted, it is defendants‘ burden to demonstrate error by the arbitrator to demonstrate arbitral error and they have failed to do so. (frantz v. inter-insurance 5. other arguments bargaining agreement between employers and employees or between their respective hearing on that subject. never appeared at his deposition and all defendants withdrew from the arbitration. opened a fourth store in valley fair, which, at that time, was in an unincorporated area in 9.1, the arbitrator shall continue as the arbitrator for the dispute and the challenge shall stay requests were denied. as noted, on november 27, 2007, mr. howsam was indicted concurrently with such production, produce and deliver privilege logs identifying and film & television inc. v. superior court (mar. 11, 2010, s180731) [nonpub. order].) circumstances, an arbitrator can decide alter ego issues. (hotels nevada, llc v. l.a. thereby forfeiting their right to raise the issue. (moncharsh v. heily & blase, supra, 3 [nonpub. opn.].) mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. had filed a (9th cir. 1996) 96 f.3d 410, 414-416 (carpenters 46, supra). in that case, an alleged conducted pursuant to title 9.3 of the code of civil procedure1 30-31; mossman v. city of oakdale, supra, 170 cal.app.4th at p. 93; reed v. mutual letter. on march 30 and april 5, 2010, ms. starkey denied defendants‘ challenges to the arbitration setting.‘ the rationale behind our holding was that a claimant ‗may not the awards were confirmed. defendants‘ motions for issuance of a statement of decision the trial court refused to vacate these three awards and confirmed them. 60 be a default under rule [11.1] above, unless otherwise provided by applicable law. the permitted in international commercial arbitrations by section 1297.134, a subject which arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the may be taken to superior court. section 1297.134 states: ―if a challenge following the bargaining agreement between employers and employees or between their respective a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party. [¶] (ii) the person service corp., supra, 106 cal.app.4th at pp. 1372-1373; paramount unified school dist. an abundance of caution, and even though i no longer represented the clients, i disclosed mr. strick was [their] first eligible choice.‖ passing on the bona fides of the grounds of challenge that a sufficient issue exists to film & television inc. v. superior court (may 12, 2010, s181113) [nonpub. order].) on the petitions are based on all the grounds specified in section 1286.2 subdivision (a). in title, all persons whose names have been submitted for consideration for appointment or indictment. on april 27, 2009, mr. howsam‘s indictment was dismissed without section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(1) states that an award may be vacated if the room for such purpose. [¶] the foregoing rules provide you with the equitable discretion each of the parties and the arbitrator shall be promptly notified of the selection of the (moncharsh v. heily & blase (1992) 3 cal.4th 1, 33 [―[a]n award reached by an merits of the parties‘ claims for april 12 through 27, 2010. disposition of the case.‖‘ (rao v. campo, supra, 233 cal.app.3d at p. 1565.) if an order howsam. comerica is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all invoice. [fn. omitted.] [¶] with regard to the $30,000 advance deposit requested from other parties in this proceeding. we must object to continued participation in this 3 pay an additional fee deposit of $30,000. the amount requested far exceeds the defendants argue that the arbitrator did not have the authority to order the inc.; gft/redwood kotn films, inc.; and gft redwood/ignition films, inc. the duplicative billing, refused to rule on defendants‘ motions and issued an inappropriate comerica bank, in september 2007, mr. goldstein was charged with a single count of bank fraud. filed 8/20/12 not bound by the arbitrator‘s decision of arbitrability. id. at 414-16. our decision, 16 television inc. was denied. on december 28, 2004, the motion to compel arbitration with unidentified alliance officials. during that discussion, the arbitrator verified there mossman v. city of oakdale, supra, 170 cal.app.4th at p. 93; reed v. mutual service then a new hearing will be held. if the arbitrator has issued a final award or a tentative arbitration. [the alliance] does not have jurisdiction to overrule or supersede any order plaintiff had deposited $12,000. defendants had not deposited any moneys for arbitrator authority, our supreme court held: ―in numerous cases, this court and the courts of utilizing forged assignment notices and other documents to steal millions of dollars from alter ego of an employer that had signed an arbitration agreement. we held that the plaintiff discovered the fraudulent scheme. party to be in default and make appropriate orders or interim awards to require close personal or professional relationship with a person who meets any of the following cal. (9th cir. 1997) 116 f.3d 436, 440, the court of appeals explained: ―our conclusion considered the defendants‘ stay motions. as to the disclosure issue, the arbitrator stated: none of the asserted grounds are a basis for vacating the award. before 10 signatory authority over a client‘s account. the signatory authority issue was of little court (1988) 198 cal.app.3d 894, 905.) finally, even if the arbitrator erred, it was not a disqualification request with the arbitral agent, ms. starkey. as noted, the arbitral agent ―reviewable on appeal‖ from the final judgment.‘ (rao v. campo (1991) 233 cal.app.3d we disagree with defendants on both counts. 1994; and sen. com. on judiciary, 3d reading analysis of sen. bill no. 1638 (1993-1994 proceeding, without prejudice to respondents‘ pending motions in the superior court, yield dynamics, inc. v. tea systems corp. (2007) 154 cal.app.4th 547, 559 [―we do operated by bloom‘s salinas, inc. (retail clerks, supra, 173 cal.app.2d at pp. 702-703.) december 15, 2004, the motion to quash of mr. howsam and greenlight film & rules 6.1 through 6.3 of the alliance‘s international arbitration state: ―6.1 but one thing is clear, an arbitrator‘s manifest disregard of the law is not a ground for greenlight film & television inc., responded on february 23, 2010, by writing to decision. (in re marriage of falcone & fyke (2012) 203 cal.app.4th 964, 981-982; a record from which we can deduce any arbitral error occurred. it is defendants‘ burden arbitrator while there is a pending challenge before this tribunal regarding his ability to of investigation special agents. mr. goldstein pled guilty and then participated in a moreover, the arbitrator had personal jurisdiction over mr. howsam. defendants cal.2d 228, 240 [―in order that the claimed departure from the usual procedure be held to by a federal grand jury on fraud related charges. mr. howsam and greenlight film & the vacatur motion and confirming the award and the judgment. however, was based on the fact that the objecting corporation had never appeared at the connection with document production; and reserved ruling on questions concerning scheduled teleconference tomorrow. [¶] also, i have been informed by my office that [the alliance] asks that you provide to all parties and to [the alliance] an explanation of pro. per. representatives . . . .‖ (a)(6). our ruling in this regard is limited to international commercial arbitrations mr. goldstein‘s debts owed to plaintiff, as a result of the transactions at issue here, were of cpc communications, inc.; mr. howsam is the sole director of greenlight film & 35 would request a stay of discovery, or alternatively, leave to file a motion for stay of such necessary pursuant to the loan agreements were forged. the forged documents consisted mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. filed a motion in the trial court for kriegler, j. on november 12, 2007, mr. strick was designated as the arbitrator. the parties the manifest disregard of the law ground for vacating an arbitration award finds its basis resolution of the dispute, the arbitral agent shall designate an arbitrator whose name has defendants argue there was an undue delay in pursuing the arbitration. that issue could was no disclosure duty concerning the account. defendants‘ contention has no merit. no discovery practices‖ by: belatedly notifying plaintiff‘s attorneys that mr. howsam would 8 supra, 173 cal.app.2d at p. 703.) further, the court of appeal expressly stated: 358.) moreover, their alter ego analysis has no merit because defendants submitted to the manifest disregard of the law; a doctrine applicable in federal court arbitration practice. issued may 3, 2010, was in favor of plaintiff, comerica bank, and against defendants: and defendants pay the other one-half. by february 28, 2010, the arbitrator calculated he director, or trustee of a party. [¶] (ii) the person is acting or has acted as a lawyer or or replacement of an arbitrator under any of these circumstances shall not imply 4 mean an errant trial court ruling on a disqualification issue in an international commercial 12 they argue that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by resolving plaintiff‘s alter ego and greenlight film & television inc. the review petition challenged the trial court‘s 1994) and cst entertainment inc. (1994-2001); and his professional relationships a stay pending our resolution of the two mandate petitions. also, the parties litigated n.a. v. gorman (2006) 147 cal.app.4th supp. 1, 7.) further, as to the amount of the arbitrator was assigned on november 12, 2007; on may 21, 2009, the arbitrator disclosed account maintained with plaintiff. on march 15, 2010, the other defendants joined in the their stay motion. on the same date, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. improper ex parte communications between an arbitrator and a litigant can serve amended complaint which included the alter ego claims. super. ct. no. bc316406) bloom‘s salinas, inc. (id. at p. 702.) indictment was dismissed. proceedings resumed but later defendants withdrew from the conf. bd. v. zcon builders, 96 f.3d 410 (9th cir. 1996). in zcon, an arbitrator had held mr. howsam and mr. goldstein. more proposed arbitrators receive equally favorable acceptance from all parties, then the television inc. the arbitrator found: mr. howsam created and controlled cpc analyses, analysis of sen. bill no. 1638 (1993-1994 reg. sess.) may 27, 1994; assem. ―at the time of my appointment, it did not occur to me that a client‘s bank account at moved to compel arbitration. the remaining defendants who are parties to this appeal the arbitration notice; ruled alter ego issues were properly part of the arbitration; and set a as noted, the arbitrator discussed that he had signatory authority over a client‘s account existed, such a unity of ownership, interest and control between the howsam parties, on december 22, 2009, the arbitrator modified the alliance‘s allocation to require defendants 30 above.‖ 33 the limited scope of carpenters 46, supra, 96 f.3d at pages 415-416, is illustrated defendants‘ argument that there were other improper ex parte communications. and inc. challenging the trial court‘s ruling denying their sanctions and disqualification unless otherwise noted, future statutory references are to the code of civil 1557, 1565; see southern pacific co. v. oppenheimer (1960) 54 cal.2d 784, 785-786.) act forfeited because the issue was not raised before the arbitrator].) by withdrawing, second award, issued july 16, 2010, was in plaintiff‘s favor and against mr. howsam and dominated and operated the howsam parties, and at all times mentioned herein was arbitral agent is final and the parties and the arbitrator shall be bound by such corporate alter ego, sharon hill, was not present at a hearing to compel arbitration. a expended 53.25 hours at a billing rate of $300 per hour for a total due of $15,975. allocation. in his february 26, 2010 written order, the arbitrator ruled on the issues raised were the agreements to arbitrate contained in the assignment notices. on october 27, statute in international commercial arbitrations; not sections 1281.9 and 1281.91. (lake disqualification issue. on october 25, 2004, seven defendants, except for mr. howsam and greenlight 23 an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. [¶] (iv) defendants argue the award was secured in manifest disregard of the law. addition, the arbitrator ordered plaintiff to respond to 10 supplemental admission decided in the judicial forum. the trial court then dismissed the case because bloom‘s advance against the arbitrator‘s fees. the arbitrator shall give formal notice of any such [¶] if you have any questions, please let me know. thank you in advance for your to pay only 50 percent of his fees. and as our record demonstrates, defendants never all of the foregoing, we conclude defendants have failed to demonstrate the billing errors date for additional issues to be resolved. arbitration on the ground there was noncompliance with section 580, subdivision (a). order denying their terminating sanctions and disqualification motion. (greenlight corruption, fraud, other undue means, or misconduct. likewise, there is no merit to whenever the substantial interests of a party are affected by a judgment. . . .‖ final allocation of arbitration related costs and expenses would be made at the close of arbitration shall collectively be reduced by 17.5 hours or five thousand two hundred supra.) section 1281.9 identifies similar but also materially different disclosure duties. decision. but it may not ‗interrogate the judge‘ on evidentiary matters.‖].) under these gary howsam. july 1, 1994; sen. com. on judiciary, 3d reading analysis of sen. bill no. 1638 (1993- is an overlap between sections 1281.9 and 1281.91, on one hand, and section 1297.121, $15,000: ―with regard to the arbitrator‘s most recent invoice #5, (a copy of which is providing for formal discovery: ―under the circumstances, a preliminary determination plaintiff‘s claims was tolled upon the june 1, 2004 filing of the complaint. on november amended complaint alleges that plaintiff is owed in excess of $20 million. that an arbitrator can never decide alter ego issues based on retail clerks, supra, 173 arbitrator, notices of all such matters shall be forwarded to the arbitrator (with copy to the arbitrator on the disclosure issue constitutes corruption, fraud or other undue means. amended award was procured by corruption, fraud, undue means, or misconduct of the b222450) [nonpub. order].) fee challenge. this, they argue is evidence of corruption, fraud or other undue means. determination by a court. george day, and not zcon, governs pacesetter‘s case.‖ the miscalculations occurred. the billing errors were to the detriment of each side. also, the invoices dated january 13, 2010 and february 28, 2010 in the above-referenced ([e]mphasis added[.]) [¶] based on a review of the [alliance‘s] file, several charges 3 arbitral agent shall transmit all deposits upon receipt to the arbitrator.‘ [¶] please make issuance of a final award or tentative final award. the arbitral agent may, in his/her sole arbitration agreement, and for that purpose, an arbitration clause which forms part of a not subject to appeal. section 1297.135 provides, ―the decision of the superior court (b) the person served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or the person is or has corp., supra, 106 cal.app.4th at pp. 1372-1373; paramount unified school dist. v. based on ms. starkey‘s ruling, defendants argue the awards were procured by ―arbitration and conciliation of international commercial disputes.‖ (§ 1297.11 et seq.) absence of an indispensible party. the court of appeal noted it was conceded that l. failure of any party to meet the deposit requirements may be deemed by the arbitrator to 11.25 hours ($3,375) and the february 28 invoice is reduced by 6.25 hours ($1,875).‖ delineated the scope of the excess of powers justification for vacatur. (pearson dental will be noted though, that does not resolve the question of whether the awards can be set people v. casa blanca convalescent homes, inc. (1984) 159 cal.app.4th 509, 525; see section 1286.2 states: ―(a) subject to section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the e. excess of powers argument tree surgery co. v. international brotherhood of electrical workers (1976) 65 an arbitrator‘s disclosure duties under california‘s international commercial the plaintiff filed a petition to compel arbitration where the arbitrator would designates a staff member as the ―arbitral agent.‖ richonda starkey was designated by his power when he decided alter ego issues. he did not. we affirm the orders denying the arbitrator such authority may be implied from the conduct of the parties in the the question. it must first be determined whether bloom‘s salinas, inc., is in fact but the court‘s february 2, 2010 order denying their terminating sanctions and disqualification mcl financial group, inc. (2009) 170 cal.app.4th 1118, 1124-1125.) california arbitration act apply. outstanding issues including current discovery issues, prehearing scheduling and credit for prior payments. (the record before us indicates defendants never paid any non-dischargeable. under the terms of the settlement, plaintiff received $300,000. there television inc. as noted, the sanctions and disqualification motions of mr. howsam and arbitrator raised the issue of his unpaid fees. mr. coate, on behalf of mr. howsam and granted, all discovery deadlines remain in effect. [¶] all documents ordered produced should be no further argument or dispute over these depositions. the interests of finality proceedings seeking relief with respect to a matter covered by the agreement to arbitrate, inc. cited to the aforementioned reference to ―clients‖ in the arbitrator‘s march 19, 2010 have noted, state: ―(a) subject to section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the begin with, mr. coate and his clients had withdrawn from the arbitration. the objections proceeding pursuant to [alliance] rules 8.1, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4, inter alia, at a hearing to be is not one of them. defendants have failed to provide this court with many of the papers defendants‘ reconsideration request. the arbitrator: denied defendants‘ stay request; had been depositions, extensive document production, use of interrogatories, and they or will they in any way affect my impartiality and neutrality as arbitrator and would corruption, fraud or other undue means. [¶] (2) there was corruption in any of the 22 $12,000, was to pay an additional $16,987.50. defendants, who had made no deposit, production and depositions; and scheduling of further proceedings relating to in limine salinas, inc., which was never served with the petition, was an indispensible party. (id. alter ego allegations: ―on information and belief, comerica alleges that defendant gft here disclosed do not constitute a conflict with regard to the present arbitration, nor have plaintiff‘s demurrer to an amended cross-complaint; and scheduled the hearings on the arbitrator shall disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to joiners, local 354, 722 f.2d 1471, 1475 (9th cir. 1984), we held that ‗consent to grant respect to international commercial arbitration and conciliation.‖ as will be noted, the was dismissed, defendants presented multiple stay requests to the arbitrator. but they all times material hereto have been owned, controlled or otherwise dominated by arbitration that is the subject of the challenge has concluded. the party challenging the ‗―the theory behind the rule is that piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals in a single court determines any of the following: [¶] . . . (6) an arbitrator making the award 2009 sanctions and disqualification motions of mr. howsam and greenlight film & mr. coate objected to any consideration being given plaintiff‘s sanctions motions while the video told mr. goldstein to claim a subordinate forged the signatures and to lie about him. (avant! corp. v. superior court (2000) 79 cal.app.4th 876, 885; klein v. superior was charged with the duty to decide disqualification issues. the challenge was based on arbitrator‘s assignment. (§ 1297.121.) disclosure in domestic arbitrations must be made v. receipt of the list from each of the parties or five (5) days from the last day provided for industry by united artists corporation (1975-1977), home box office, inc. (1980-1981), filed on march 2, 2010. on march 10, 2010, plaintiff‘s counsel responded to the fee mr. howsam argues his rights were substantially prejudiced because his multiple and denied defendants‘ cross-claims. denied. . . . in the meantime, [defendants] are ordered to immediately pay their share v. teachers assn. of paramount (1994) 26 cal.app.4th 1371, 1386.) of not less than three (3) alternate proposed arbitrators, if reasonably practicable, to the witnesses; stipulated facts; and the manner in which discovery disputes were to be of mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. to disqualify the arbitrator. an order disqualifying the arbitrator. on may 25, 2010, the trial court denied the motion iii. procedural history was a qualified confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement. plaintiff agreed to group 2011) ¶ 5:49.13, p. 5-43 (rev. # 1, 2010).) thus, there is no merit to defendants‘ v. cedars-sinai medical center (2011) 194 cal.app.4th 987, 1004, fn. 14.) 19, 2009, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. objected to orders c. vacatur grounds the alter ego of l. bloom sons co. the trial court ruled that any alter ego issue was to be subsidiaries of greenlight film & television inc.; mr. howsam transferred assets of split on this invoice. we would ask for a proper recalculation so that prior amounts that disclose issue in a writ petition. all we are holding is that noncompliance with section to induce funding of the loans; two foreign distributors testified they never entered into at issue are the arbitration, not the conciliation, provisions. the arbitration provisions 1504, 1513; rowe v. exline (2007) 153 cal.app.4th 1276, 1285.) defendants‘ argument at a february 24, 2010 hearing before the arbitrator, defendants raised the issue of 1992) 967 f.2d 1401, 1403-1404; accord pour le bebe, inc. v. guess? inc., supra, 112 arbitration. finally, numerous california decisions hold that, depending on the actively sought to arbitrate under broadly stated alliance rules and an international found defendants acted with malice, fraud and oppression. the arbitrator: awarded documents involve the unpaid debts in this case. section 904.1, subdivision (a) states: ―an appeal, other than in a limited civil statute of limitations would run on mr. howsam‘s dismissed federal bank fraud and the original complaint was filed on june 1, 2004. according to the first amended will of a person is overpowered.‘).‖ (a.g. edwards & sons, inc. v. mccollough (9th cir. section 1281.9 was adopted. (sen. com. on judiciary, analysis of sen. bill no. 1638 arbitration. (comerica bank v. gft circle films, inc. (sep. 15, 2005, b180622) the issue may be raised on direct appeal after a vacatur motion is denied. but we hold the to the first amended complaint and the notice of arbitration and filed a motion to strike. by various law firms including loeb & loeb (1977-1980), talmadge, pritzger & strick 10 aside under section 1286.2, subdivision(a)(6)(a). only if: (a) h. goldstein does not advise [plaintiff] within seventy-two (72) [hours] of signatory authority on may 21, 2009. defendants waited until march 12 and 15, 2010, to directing the parties confer concerning discovery issues; directing all parties to produce ―the tribunal notes [defendants‘] comments with regard to a split of [alliance fees] and to ensure the just, expeditious, economical and final determination of all matters in (2002) p. 20215 [―abandon chronology at your peril . . .‖].) interpretation.‖]; morris v. zuckerman (1968) 69 cal.2d 686, 691 [―although the court 203 cal.app.4th at p. 358.) and any doubt concerning arbitrability must be resolved in of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or after becoming aware of any circumstances party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. [¶] much of the arbitration including assisting in the selection or removal of the arbitrator. a randolph & associates and donald c. randolph for defendant and appellant file their motion by january 13, 2010; claimant may file its opposition by january 20; if certainly, section 1297.17 speaks to superseding sections 1280 through 1284.2. and november 20, 2009, originally scheduled for february 9-2 [sic] by this tribunal‘s january (b) exchange documents or other evidence to be introduced at the hearing; (c) submit deposition of mr. howsam in canada. this contention has no merit. rule 8.8 of the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct information; other hearing dates; and the setting of the final hearings commencing appointment, the arbitral agent shall appoint a successor arbitrator under rule 6.6.3. 643, 650.) 32 disqualification request of mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. appeal have used the phrase ‗not an appealable order‘ to characterize an order as being denied. the mandate and review petitions challenging the december 15, 2004 order alliance‘s rules and defendant‘s withdrew from the arbitration. arbitrator and an attorney, our colleagues in division six of this appellate district alliance‘s international arbitration rules states: ―except as provided herein, no formal of license agreements and notices and acknowledgments of assignments (assignment without prejudice. on may 4, 2009, plaintiff indicated to the alliance a desire to proceed motions are adjudicated and finally resolved is correspondingly set forth in the pending april 16, 2001; sen. rules com., off. of sen. floor analyses, sen. bill no. 475, 3d 9 arbitrator is removed after an arbitration hearing, but prior to the issuance of an award, nevertheless i make this information available to the parties in what i believe to be an on february 24, 2010, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. filed a mutual agreement or on order of the arbitrator (a) exchange lists of anticipated witnesses rules 6.1 through 6.3 of the alliance‘s international commercial arbitration rules 48 the arbitrator an equal amount as an advance against the arbitrator‘s fees. the especially when arbitrator strick today has threatened with virtually no notice the exchange, supra, 229 cal.app.2d at p. 274; popcorn equipment co. v. page, supra, 92 evidence presently before it, the government does not intend to further is appealable, however, and no timely appeal is taken therefrom, the issues determined by disregard of the law. it did not. fourth, we will discuss whether the arbitrator exceeded film & television inc.; mr. howsam created the seven corporations as vehicles for on february 23, 2010, at 5:10 a.m. from new york city, the arbitrator raised the to stay the arbitration. the stay motion was based on the fact mr. howsam had been order denying their motion to quash. on november 7, 2005, the certiorari petition of section 1297.161 states: ―the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, 13 certified for partial publication* received loan proceeds were the alter egos of mr. howsam and greenlight film & and cheryl m. lott, for plaintiff and respondent. claimant may reply by january 18, 2010. [¶] i also have respondents‘ letter to me of contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract, hamrick, the attorney for the seven corporations used to secure the loan funding. the the accounts, i have never had any personal interest in the company, its subsidiaries, the disqualifying factor enumerated in section 1297.121 is a proper vacatur ground. under this tribunal‘s order of november 20, 2009 shall be produced forthwith, but not on may 3, 2010, the arbitrator entered an interim award and factual findings in arbitration. under its international commercial arbitration rules, the alliance acts as the (s.d.n.y. 1961) 191 f.supp. 359, 363 [―it may not complain that it has not been heard supplemental challenge to the arbitrator. mr. howsam and greenlight film & television arbitration, and consequently never evinced its intent to allow the arbitrator to decide howsam has completely controlled, dominated, managed and operated the howsam power to decide all issues. defendants all filed or joined in petitions to compel indicted. later, the indictment was dismissed against mr. howsam. the indictment pending terminating sanctions motion directed against them for their failure to obey the be challenged if circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubt as to the the other hand, has ceased. the howsam parties are the alter egos of howsam in that 34 arbitrator and unidentified alliance officials; the arbitrator threatened to default appear to be either duplicative or excessive based on the description of the work and belief, comerica alleges that the howsam parties are, individually and jointly, and at including, but not limited to, the situs of the arbitration, the governing law and the cooperation.‖ also on march 4, 2010, we summarily denied the petition of mr. howsam greenlight film & television inc., and their lawyer, charles coate. the third award, arbitration clauses, which are the same in all of the assignment notices, provide for after the jurisdictional issue and appellate litigation involving them concluded, on 25 defendants also rely on carpenters 46 n. ca conference bd. v. zcon builders sections 2025.210 and 2025.230 do not apply to international depositions; the depositions his own business, including engaging in the acts and/or omissions set forth herein. cal.app.4th at pp. 250-254; see stolt-nielsen s.a. v. animalfeeds int’l corp. (2010) 559 hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the ‗howsam parties.‘ on information on march 12, 2010, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. filed a & elec. co. (2011) 194 cal.app.4th 939, 956; kelly v. cb&i constructors, inc. (2009) but the ninth circuit panel in carpenters 46 distinguished that case from a prior [¶] (5) the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the required by section 1291. but we agree with plaintiff the shotgun like interrogatories buchalter nemer, p.c., peter g. bertrand, efrat m. cogan, robert addison, jr., will not and cannot attend these improperly noticed international video depositions which goldstein‘s prior written consent; or (b) if required by court order or subpoena clearly stated: ‗―[w]e have repeatedly held that if the legislature intends to abrogate the arbitration of ―any‖ dispute between the parties. the arbitration clauses in all of the arbitrator after their defaults were entered is meritless—they made the decision to at the february 24, 2010 hearing and denied: defendants‘ stay request; issued orders in decide the alter ego issue. (ibid.) controlling. as in the case of california‘s jurisprudence, the ninth circuit had held that, borrowers acknowledged the loans would not have been made without the representations 27, 2001.) we have further examined the committee reports prepared in 1994 when raise the issue and only then when the arbitrator had made adverse rulings against them. addition, the petitions and points and authorities allege: the arbitrator engaged in from deciding alter ego issues. (hotels nevada, llc v. l.a. pacific center, inc., supra, alliance‘s international arbitration rules which vested the arbitrator with extensive award was obtained through undue means; the arbitrator improperly refused to stay the mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. filed a motion in the trial court to arbitrator‘s billing statements which ms. starkey relied upon in making her ruling on the [parties may restrict arbitrator‘s powers by agreeing to expanded merit‘s based judicial on appeal, mr. howsam argues a stay request should have been granted. should issue.‖ 5 also on february 23, 2010, mr. coate, counsel for mr. howsam and greenlight teachers assn. of paramount, supra, 26 cal.app.4th at p. 1386.) after the indictment of an international commercial arbitration award. given our holding, we need not between [plaintiff] on one side, and [defendants] on the other, but no credit has been appeal were filed on behalf of defendants and mr. coate on april 26, 2011. withdraw from his/her office as arbitrator; or the arbitral agent may determine without admissions requests had been propounded; depositions had been ordered; this was the final award, then no removal or replacement of the arbitrator shall take place. [¶] 6.6.3 page (1949) 92 cal.app.2d 448, 451, overruled on a different point in flores v. arroyo means. they did not. third, we will discuss whether the award resulted from a manifest accounting; imposition of a constructive trust; injunctive relief; attorney fees; and costs. provisions are applicable. at oral argument, in response to an inquiry from the bench, the claimed privilege or prohibition. counsel shall promptly advise and petition this self-incrimination rights may not serve as a basis for vacatur. had modified the alliance‘s decision to require each side to pay 50 percent of the fees. influence occurs when there is bribery or intimidation of the arbitrator. (id. at p. 832.) scheduling of two days of depositions on march 12 and 15, 2010 are affirmed. in the 140 cal. 206, 208-209 [―the obvious meaning of this subdivision is that the misconduct in matthew c., our supreme court reviewed language in former welfare and prosecute . . . howsam for the offenses alleged in the indictment and/or any related b. failure to disclose discovery procedures shall be permitted under these rules; except that the parties may by contained in the pre-sales papers. the distribution agreements were forged. the forged presented no evidence that after ms. starkey‘s march 17, 2010 ruling, any further mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. was denied by the united states paramount (1994) 26 cal.app.4th 1371, 1386 [noncompliance with government claims 68 [―[g]rounds for vacating an arbitrator‘s award are statutory and limited.‖].) in fee requested by the arbitrator by appealing to the arbitral agent to determine the loans described in the first amended complaint resulted in federal bank fraud indictments collateral was in the form of guaranteed minimum license fees funded by foreign designate as the arbitrator for the dispute the person available to serve as arbitrator who relates to vacating an award, directly refers to section 1281.91. challenging the trial court‘s may 25, 2010 order refusing to disqualify the arbitrator. stay of this arbitration following dismissal of federal charges against mr. howsam were section 1297.132 requires a challenge be made within 15 days of becoming aware scheduled for march 12 and 15, 2010, in toronto. d. manifest disregard of the law pp. 1372-1373; paramount unified school dist. v. teachers assn. of paramount, supra, v. disposition order, if existent) no later than twenty-four (24) hours of receipt of such request or court 24 (a)(4) permits a trial court to vacate an award where the arbitrator exceeds his or her film & television inc., made a written demand to arbitrate the claims alleged in the first dismissed, i discussed disclosure on an anonymous basis with senior [alliance] advisors woodman investment group (2005) 129 cal.app.4th 508, 513; mbna america bank, arbitrator found mr. hamrick had not engaged in any discovery abuses. on july 19, dismissal of his indictment. this, he argues, required the trial court vacate the award. defendants argue the arbitrator overbilled them and this is evidence of corruption, arbitral forum; before both the arbitrator and the arbitration administrator; the trial court; discusses post-confirmation awards. by contrast section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1) also, on may 3, 2010, the arbitrator found in plaintiff‘s favor on its fraud based of the wrongful actions at issue in this case, the allegations contained herein include gft the foregoing procedure under section 1297.133 is not successful, the challenging party may request deposed in toronto. defendants have not developed any argument, apart from noting scheduled for april 12, 2010. shortly before april 12, 2010, defendants announced they television inc.; all seven corporations used to fund the films are wholly owned on july 16, 2010, the arbitrator granted plaintiff‘s sanctions motions which had november 2, 2007, defendants moved to quash service of the notice of arbitration. also, was dismissed is that proceedings were sometimes simultaneously pending in: the requiring payment of all arbitrator fees by november 25, 2009. reiterated their objections to mr. strick remaining as the arbitrator. allocation issues. it is understandable how billing errors could occur under these withdraw from the arbitration. defendants‘ contentions discussed in this paragraph are for mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. requested a discovery stay or the requests; document production; allowing plaintiff to depose mr. howsam and two other reserved ruling on the surveillance evidence in limine motion; overruled plaintiff‘s 2006) 436 f.3d 1098, 1101; cmsh co., inc. v. carpenters trust fund for northern judgment entered after an international commercial arbitration award was confirmed. shall not be served on the arbitrator or any other party.‖‘ section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6); a statutory vacatur ground which requires an award be international commercial arbitrations. addition, an award may be vacated where an arbitrator commits clear legal error which january 14, 2010, the arbitrator ordered that mr. howsam‘s deposition commence on challenge, the arbitrator referred to clients. as noted, on march 12, 2010, mr. howsam on may 12, 2010, our supreme court denied the review petition of mr. howsam shall be bound by this decision with regard to this fee challenge pursuant to the arbitrability, within the meaning of george day. id. at 415-16. pacesetter, in contrast, 14, 2010 order, and then rescheduled for the current march 12 and 15 dates by this discuss at some length whether the arbitrator‘s failure to timely disclose an alleged processed. during the fee challenge, plaintiff‘s counsel sent a letter responding to court, supra, 50 cal.4th at p. 385; rebmann v. rohde, supra, 196 cal.app.4th at p. provide specified notice to mr. goldstein if it received a court order to turn over party may challenge an arbitrator by giving notice of his/her challenge to the other party, time period; or (c) h. goldstein‘s request for a protective order is denied. in no event justify the replacement of the arbitrator and appointment of a new arbitrator. removal payment of fees and enter a default if they are unpaid. the award was not secured by alliance‘s senior counsel, wrote an e-mail stating that mr. coate‘s fee challenge would be inc., served a written demand to arbitrate the claims in the first amended complaint. the absence of a showing that the arbitrator was improperly influenced or actually considered greenlight circle films, inc. mr. coate challenges the award of monetary sanctions for discovery abuses. to (1981-1989), rubin, bailin & ortoli (2001-2007); his employment in the entertainment this subdivision does not apply to arbitration proceedings conducted under a collective a neutral arbitrator. [¶] (4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot service of the arbitration notice which had been filed november 2, 2007. the arbitrator on his or her own jurisdiction.10 section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6) vacatur order. thus, the trial court correctly refused to failure to timely disclose potential disqualifying circumstances, as required by sections com. on judiciary, analysis of sen. bill no. 1638 (1993-1994 reg. sess.) august 26, awards and denying the motion to vacate them was served. judgment was entered on documents and their purpose: ―pre-sales are used to demonstrate (1) the level of interest in rule 6. 6.6.7 the arbitral agent‘s decision as to the appointment, confirmation, objected to mr. howsam‘s deposition because: sections 2025.210 and 2025.230 do not from those in sections 1281.9 and 1281.91. section 1297.121 describes an international spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse than any of the excepted parties) request from [plaintiff] information regarding the cannot be required to waive their right to have this threshold matter first determined. [¶] further, defendants may not raise the issue of whether the award was secured in mr. howsam argues he was still subject to potential criminal liability notwithstanding the 36 defendants have forfeited their opportunity to challenge the actual results of the greenlight film & television inc. mr. coate‘s declaration states: ―on march 10, 2010, 33; oaktree capital management, l.p. v. bernard, supra, 182 cal.app.4th at p. 68.) the arbitrator or conciliator in another proceeding involving one or more of the parties to the alliance‘s decision on the billing challenge was final. the arbitration hearing was interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. [¶] (v) based in part on the arbitrator‘s failure to disclose his signatory authority over a client‘s continue to serve as an arbitrator. we are also in receipt of a joinder to the challenge by powers‖]; cable connection, inc. v. directv, inc. (2008) 44 cal.4th ay pp. 1354-1364 parties shall produce and deliver to the los angeles office of opposing counsel, not previously been submitted, without the necessity of resubmitting names to the parties. on the merits before the arbitrators since it waived the right to do so granted to it by the arbitrability of any claims or cross claims which the arbitrator deems necessary or proper fn. 6 [holding manifest disregard of the law remains a proper ground for vacatur and arbitration statutes materially depart from those applicable to domestic disputes. section the list shall be rated in numerical order showing as number one, the person most appear on his own behalf and greenlight film & television inc. the objections stated: receives favorable acceptance from all parties, then the arbitral agent shall submit a list issue of unpaid fees in an e-mail to all counsel: ―thank you mr. bertrand. receipt is arbitrators. [¶] (3) the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of evidence the alleged corporate alter ego, sharon hill, ever agreed to submit the alter ego 43 17 paid any fees. arbitrators and arbitration providers have a duty to insure litigants are 179 cal.app.4th 442, 451-452.) additionally, mr. howsam could lawfully be deposed classic const., inc. v. tri-build development co. (1999) 70 cal.app.4th 1470, 1476.) required to be briefed and heard, reallocated fees so that they are fairly split 50/50 disputes relating to distributor‘s obligation to pay the advance to the bank when due, award. (maaso v. signer (2012) 203 cal.app.4th 362, 371-372; pour le bebe, inc. v. arbitrator may dismiss a claim or counterclaim, without prejudice, if a party fails to v. reed (1997) 16 cal.4th 448, 464 [―a more specific statute controls over a more general cite no authority for the proposition the arbitrator could not order mr. howsam to be 50 44 notices). the forged assignment notices required the foreign distributors to directly pay mr. howsam and seven ontario, canada corporations controlled by him. mr. howsam is the fraud; made the payments in an effort to ―buy‖ mr. goldstein‘s silence; also paid the raises constitutional issues and it is my understanding that you have now been served films inc.; gft heresy films, inc.; gft/redwood kotn films, inc.; and gft substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. [¶] (e) the person, his or her charged for simply ‗review file‘ and a half hour is expended reading a single letter on arbitrator‘s fees.‖ thus, the alliance‘s rules permit the arbitrator to order advance further, on may 3, 2010, the arbitrator found the seven corporations which disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (b) was subject to pages 702-703. to begin with, defendants all agreed to arbitrate the claims contained in upon. also, mr. coate raised an issue concerning of allocation of fees. on march 12, party which intends to challenge an arbitrator shall, within 15 days after becoming aware matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be 13, 2010, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. filed a motion in the trial (fn. omitted.) in terms of the depositions, the arbitrator stated they were ordered upon resources, the true need for all of this discovery from the standpoint of respondents is to 1281.9 and 1281.91. further, no court may intervene in matters governed by the 49 in relation to the documents reviewed, a number of time descriptions do not appear to mail that mr. coate‘s february 23, 2010 arbitrator fee challenge would be processed. in the arbitral agent) for decision and the arbitrator shall make such decision.‘ which is entitled, the present case is entirely different from retail clerks, supra, 173 cal.app.3d at been appointed or designated as such, shall, within 15 days, make a disclosure to the com. on judiciary, analysis. of sen. bill no. 475 (2001-2002 reg. sess.) as amended before us and the california supreme court; or in the federal courts. it is difficult to awards. as noted, section 1297.135 expressly states the superior court‘s determination is defendant and appellant greenlight film & television inc. and charles m. coate, in 41 raised here and in the trial court concerning the sanctions award have thus been forfeited. arbitrator were denied by ms. starkey on march 30, 2010. on april 13, 2010, section 1297.121 provides in its entirety: ―except as otherwise provided in this arbitration rules. but no international commercial arbitration statutory provision complained about the arbitrator‘s request for an advance $15,000 payment in light of the another stay motion before the arbitrator: ―in absence of a current stay of this proceeding wrote that february 23, 2010 arbitrator fee challenge would be processed. on march 17, that he had represented a client who had an account with plaintiff ; he had signatory arbitration had commenced. a lengthy stay in the arbitral proceedings ensued until the against mr. howsam was returned after the first amended complaint was filed and the deposed at the place he demanded the deposition occur. no doubt, defendants objected, based on canadian law, to mr. howsam‘s deposition described why it was inappropriate to vacate the arbitration award: ―we agree the issue in this case. on november 9, 2007, defendants, other than mr. howsam and were inconvenient; neither mr. howsam nor greenlight film & television inc. would provides a litigant may appeal from a judgment.9 arbitrator for documents or other materials . . . or in any manner fails to conform to the on the other, but the differences are material. section 1297.121 is the more specific of february 22, 2010. the arbitrator expressly ruled that the statute of limitations on 1 requests may be deemed by the arbitrator to be a default under rule 11 above. the for such information related to this settlement agreement, [plaintiff] shall provide h. a. appealability fn. 2; at&t technologies, inc. v. communication workers of america (1986) 475 u.s. further, under the alliance rules, the arbitrator is charged decision with a scenario closely resembling the present case. in carpenters 46, the court floor analyses, analysis of sen. bill no. 475 (2001-2002 reg. sess.) as amended august television alliance (the alliance). the september 18, 2007 demand seeks damages in with a copy of a stay motion by associate counsel addressing the same. further, discovery. it can hardly be disputed that such [alliance] discovery will be extremely arbitrator‘s impartiality or independence as to the matter or parties at issue. [¶] 6.6.1 a toronto; and by disingenuously objecting to the videotaping of the deposition which 1. overview the description of the arbitrator‘s expenditure of time and the advance retainer of of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title. [¶] (6) an arbitrator making the v. union sec. life ins. co. (9th cir. 2009) 555 f.3d 1042, 1045; comer v. micor (9th cir. arbitrator: scheduled a hearing on a motion to quash; scheduled another preliminary undue means. (§ 1286.2, subd. (a)(1).) among other things, we will analyze whether the finding that such ground or grounds fairly exist, then the challenge should be sustained.‖ money had and received; account stated; and open book account. plaintiff sought: 4 proceedings, courts often direct counsel to prepare awards and it is not indicative of rule 11.1 for failure to pay arbitral fees. on april, 5, 2010, ms. starkey indicated the of each other with respect to the obligations and omissions as hereafter alleged.‖ hearing; and noted that plaintiff had withdrawn its opposition to the arbitration tribunal‘s of any of the forgeries; the forged instruments were provide by mr. howsam; and 52 moreover, defendants sought arbitration under california‘s international on march 10, 2010, the arbitrator denied defendants‘ further stay motion which had been completely staying the action was filed. trial on plaintiff‘s first amended complaint was parties agreed to stay the arbitration for six months given mr. howsam‘s indictment. the on december 5, 2007, a preliminary telephonic hearing was held and the by claimant(s), the arbitrator may dismiss the proceedings without prejudice. the the 2001 statutes when sections 1281.9 was amended and 1281.91 was adopted. (sen. possible stipulated facts; permitting use of letters to raise discovery disputes; and confirming three international commercial arbitration awards. the first arbitration award, been filed on march 15 and 19, 2010. the arbitrator found he had the authority to 1, 2010, the arbitrator declared defendants in default pursuant to the alliance‘s arbitration defendants have only established the arbitrator negligently miscalculated his fees. there an arbitrator has a duty to disclose: ―in any arbitration pursuant to an arbitration solely on the fifth amendment privilege, was filed in the trial court—not before the certified for partial publication the arbitration to proceed (subject to any award on costs). if such payment is not made claims. the arbitrator found: the forged distribution agreements were given to plaintiff section 1297.82 states, ―a timely request for a stay of judicial proceedings made filed an opposition. amount of time already spent on this matter to date (221.5 hours) and the further deposit identify how the arbitrator is selected.5 received a letter from plaintiff‘s counsel during the fee challenge; the award was prepared parties, and has used those entities as mere shells or conduits through which to carry on proceeding by the arbitrator while the instant challenge is pending. for example, under acting within the course and scope of that agency, partnership or representation. owed $28,987.50. on march 2, 2010, mr. coate, counsel for mr. howsam and courts various jurisdictional and duty to arbitrate issues; between december 5, 2007, and were withdrawing from the arbitral proceedings. when defendants withdrew, there was a all outstanding fees relating to these proceedings.‖ (remarks of sen. ted stevens on the death of steven ambrose, 107th cong., 2d sess. hearing, which is set in april. no explanation as to what this advance is for or entails is representatives.‖ section 1281.9, subdivision (a) identifies a specific circumstance where arbitrator.‖ on october 30, 2007, ms. starkey, the alliance‘s never sought a stay before the arbitrator based on the fifth amendment or canadian law. in part. originally, the alliance ordered defendants to pay three-fourths of the arbitrator‘s maintains that bloom‘s salinas, inc., is but the alter ego of [l. bloom sons co.], that it arbitral agent, circulated a list of potential arbitrators. pursuant to paragraph 6.3 of the of the disqualifying circumstances.8 vacated when an arbitrator fails to timely disclose a potentially disqualifying tri-build development co., supra, 70 cal.app.4th at p. 1476.) never recovered the full amount of the loans and the security was worthless. mr. strick‘s resume cataloged: his undergraduate and graduate degrees; his employment plaintiff argues defendants‘ failure to disclose contention cannot be raised on with determining his or her powers. rule 8.1 states, ―the arbitrator shall have all disregard of the law. defendants did not request a new arbitration hearing. plaintiffs requests. bloom sons co. and bloom‘s salinas, inc. were separately incorporated. (retail clerks, unchallenged findings, incorrectly invoiced the parties for arbitral services. but based on institutions code section 366.26, subdivision (k) which purported to restrict the right to disclosure is asserted together with the privilege or prohibition claimed and the reason for agreement, when a person is to serve as a neutral arbitrator, the proposed neutral litigated in a post-judgment appeal as defendants have done here. therefore, we disagree for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (b) was subject to the parties‘ agreement at a january 27, 2010 hearing. the parties filed further papers in who confirmed their view that the matter was not subject to disclosure. nevertheless in november 22, 2005, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. moved to any ‗improper or wrongful constraint, machination, or urgency of persuasion whereby the when the result turns out to be adverse.‘‖]; reed v. mutual service corp. (2003) 106 on december 22, 2010, the trial court denied the petitions to vacate the awards. defendants have the burden of showing the arbitrator committed error. (frantz v. greenlight film & television inc., listed mr. strick as their second choice to serve as the issues. documents by december 18, 2009; limiting each side to three depositions; concerning checking accounts at comerica bank (‗cb‘). while i had signatory authority on some of dino delaurentis corporation (1981-1989), art & commerce entertainment, inc. (1989- alliance‘s arbitration rules, steven strick was listed as one of the potential arbitrators. plaintiff. defendants have presented no evidence which would support an inference they attorney gregory a. lesser wrote: ―the government . . . notes, . . . based upon the superior court, supra, 48 cal.4th at p. 678, fn. 2.) as we explained in countrywide violates the fundamental principle that where there is a conflict the more specific statute challenge. [¶] 6.6.2 when an arbitrator has been challenged by one party, the other any other party to the agreement may apply to the superior court for an order to stay the television inc. to disqualify the arbitrator. as noted, the disqualification motion of on march 5, 2010, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. served by case, is to the court of appeal. an appeal, other than in a limited civil case, may be taken challenges. on march 24, 2010, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. in a proposed film; (2) film industry confidence in the producer[;] and (3) distributors‘ the right to appeal under section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1). more to the point, no on november 20, 2009, the arbitrator issued an extensive order concerning on the arbitrator. alliance rule 14.4 does not prohibit any other non-challenging party proceeding. [¶] (d) the person, individually or a fiduciary, or such person‘s spouse or international commercial arbitration agreement as defined in this title commences judicial arbitrator issued a four-page single spaced ruling addressing various motions and issues page single spaced decision refusing to disqualify mr. strick as the arbitrator. on april an account maintained by a client (or clients) with plaintiff required his disqualification. attached) it is noted that arbitrator strick in response to an ordered request that was disqualification request. the arbitrator explained that the alliance had initially divided defendants argue though that an arbitrator may never decide alter ego issues. [the balance of the opinion is to be published] cal.app.3d at page 703 is without merit. contract based attorney fees incurred in litigating the vacatur motions in the trial court. was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. alleged to be a toronto, ontario resident. the loans were to fund the production of seven comerica is further informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the acts and acknowledged. we will take up the issues at tomorrow‘s scheduled hearing. [¶] in the in any event, our extensive chronological factual recitation demonstrates that by court for an order disqualifying the arbitrator. such a motion filed in the trial court is new name. for these, and possibly other, reasons, gft, as greenlight‘s successor, is were denied. (greenlight film & television inc. v. superior court (jul. 13, 2005, cal.app.4th 796, 805-808; marcus & millichap real estate investment brokerage co. v. on january 9, 2008, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. moved post-judgment appellate review. the order at issue was one setting a parental termination ―bloom‘s salinas, inc., is not a party to the contract. it did not consent to have this issue [part iv(c)(5) is deleted from publication] arbitrator may direct the other party or parties to pay the outstanding amounts to allow b232749 and the consequences of such failure. the failure of any party to respond to such 28 as if it had been incorporated at the time of the actions. [¶] . . . for the reasons set under section 1297.81 shall be granted.‖ section 1297.81 provides, ―when a party to an at issue was whether the corporation, sharon hill, agreed to have the arbitrator decide acknowledgment of the truth or the validity of the grounds for the challenge. if an consideration of matters before a threshold determination on the challenge is made.‖ states: ―if, after proper notice, one of the parties fails to respond to any demand by the i. introduction might cause their impartiality to be questioned including, but not limited to, any of the we concur: shortly thereafter, mr. goldstein pled guilty. on september 18, 2007, plaintiff served a (fns. omitted.) one of the omitted footnotes states the arbitrator had previously arbitration demand. referring to section 580, subdivision (a), they contend the award motion to disqualify for violation of the california rules of professional conduct is on march 24, 2010, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. filed a correction).‖]; oaktree capital management, l.p. v. bernard (2010) 182 cal.app.4th 60, the time of the settlement, there was pending adversary proceeding initiated by plaintiff attorney fees for a witness, michelle glockler; the video states ms. glockler‘s fees were previously billed arbitrator deposits have been depleted. a final allocation of arbitration 1. overview second appellate district v. mutual service corp., supra, 106 cal.app.4th at pp. 1372-1373; paramount unified summary fashion and trust that [the alliance] concurs with such concerns in light of the cal.app.4th 406, 409, 421-427.) the arbitrator had the power to order mr. howsam be such motion is under consideration by the superior court. under the circumstances, 54 18 implied mr. howsam would be deposed. the arbitrator imposed $10,598.42 in monetary items to add. i will get back to you with a proposed date/time and location.‖ any prejudice. defendants did not provide the letter; they have only referred to brief have acted as a mediator in several superior court cases in which mr. coate represented arbitration process, the arbitral agent or the arbitrator shall have the right to require and the trial court. 7 cal.app.2d at p. 451.) the alliance‘s president as the arbitral agent. the alliance‘s arbitral agent administers 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6). regarding the issuance of a stay under consideration before the california supreme court, timely provide the full amount.‖ rule 11.1 of the alliance‘s international arbitration rules on november 30, 2009, defendants served admissions requests. on december 14, decided by an arbitrator rather than by a court of competent jurisdiction.‖ (ibid.) the improper ex parte communication occurred between ms. starkey and the arbitrator. no the time the january 13 and february 28, 2010 invoices were served, both sides had: arbitrator shall give formal notice of any such failure to meet the deposit requirements in the event that a new arbitrator must be appointed under rule 6.6.2, the new arbitrator (moncharsh v. heily & blase, supra, 3 cal.4th at pp. 30-31; mossman v. city of oakdale, determined. counsel for respondents offers the use of the undersigned‘s conference february 9, 2010. on january 27, 2010, a hearing was held on: a stay request; document from other defendants; money from defendants‘ corporate accounts was paid to . . . under the circumstances, please confirm that during this interim of the tribunal‘s also on march 8, 2010, the arbitrator reiterated his prior order concerning decisional authority holds that counsel must be present when an arbitrator communicates mr. howsam knew the instruments were forged. according to the arbitrator, secured by the federal bureau of investigation, admitted he knew of the forgeries; during brotherhood of teamsters (1986) 183 cal.app.3d 1138, 1147, fn. 5.) as to undue greenlight film & television inc. filed a motion in the trial court seeking a stay of the 27 and judicial economy dictate that, if mr. howsam fails to appear, terminating sanctions arrangements with my office for immediate payment of all outstanding invoices in the disqualification issue remained unresolved. mr. coate wrote to ms. starkey and arbitrator‘s billing errors resulted in an award secured by corruption, fraud or other undue before the arbitrator began hearing testimony. no defendant filed a mandate petition second, we discuss whether the award was secured by corruption, fraud or other 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6) vacatur provision. but section 1281.9 was enacted in 1994 with the arbitration. on november 23, 2009, judge wright conducted a hearing on the pursuant to paragraph 2 of the order dated december 22, 2009, this tribunal ordered an opportunity to file a motion to that effect: ―under california law the continued commitments to purchase rights to a film once it is distributed.‖ the pre-sales documents supplies, inc. v. superior court, supra, 48 cal.4th at p. 680 [―an arbitrator whose legal 2 had no present intention of prosecuting mr. howsam. (collectively, the ‗court order‘). should [plaintiff] receive such a request or court order the superior court, within 30 days after having received notice of the decision rejecting this contention has no merit. (§ 1293.2; see benjamin weill & mazer v. kors (2011) 195 59 appeared before the arbitrator, contested arbitrability and the merits of the dispute, and tribunal‘s february 5, 2010 order (amended on february 8, 2010). in other words, there fees. on december 22, 2009, the arbitrator ordered that plaintiff pay one-half his fees [defendants‘] fee challenges. [alliance r]ule 14.4 states in pertinent part, ‗such challenge judgment rule, interlocutory or interim orders are not appealable, but are only as basis for vacatur in federal court. (countrywide financial corp. v. bundy, supra, 187 fee challenge. alliance rule 14.4 states in its entirety: ―any party may challenge any ii. first amended complaint filed september 7, 2004 opportunity to be heard on the stop notice claim, appellants cannot demonstrate that the santa clara county. (id. at p. 702.) the fourth store operated as a separate corporation, allocation of time at depositions. in addition the arbitrator addressed the issue of his fees: requested payment of fees on january 13, 2010. on february 27, 2010, plaintiff noticed 55 mr. howsam‘s deposition. (1961) 56 cal.2d 492, 497.) defendants must show they were prejudiced by the alleged category was premised on a falsehood. at that point, mr. howsam‘s deposition was respondents herein give notice of their motion and herein move for stay of this [review of disputes over an arbitrator‘s failure to act].) without delay, disclose to the parties any circumstances referred to in section 1297.121 determination on the pending challenge, the arbitrator will refrain [from] improper provided. we would kindly ask for some guidance from [the alliance] in this regard, were unilaterally set to commence tomorrow in toronto, ontario, canada.‖ also on [ms. starkey] on or before november 25, 2009 to make arrangements for the payment of greenlight film & television inc. to compel arbitration and stay the action was granted. the ex parte communication was not a basis for vacatur. (a.m. classic const., inc. v. film & television inc., wrote ms. starkey from santa monica and complained about the immediately thereafter, counsel for mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. b. events occurring after the first amended complaint was filed each party to deposit with the arbitral agent or the arbitrator an equal amount as an signatures were forged; plaintiff would not have funded the loans had its employees knew each of the parties (if possible by fax, email or other electronic means) a copy of the supra.) on november 22, 2005, mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. and 1281.91 are part of the superseded domestic arbitration provisions. section 1281.91, [parts iv(e)(3) through (h) are deleted from publication.] disregarded only when, and to the extent that, it is necessary so to do in order to prevent the arbitral tribunal, in this case the alliance, then proceedings and to compel arbitration.‖ defendants argue that the award exceeds the amount specified in the september 18, 2007 the right to appeal is statutory subject to the constitutional right of review by an ―[i]n view of the pending writ regarding terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, for 1324-1324 [finding manifest disregard of the law is no longer a proper vacatur ground].) has no identity apart from [l. bloom sons co.], and that therefore the contract of [l. award either: [¶] (a) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground (people v. mena (2012) 54 cal.4th 146, 152; point safe harbor collective v. superior supra, 170 cal.app.4th at p. 93; reed v. mutual service corp., supra, 106 cal.app.4th at defendants, other than mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc., joined in the vacate the award because of an alleged violation of section 1297.121. this does not correctly billed for services. here in two invoices, the arbitrator, based on ms. starkey‘s february 8, 2010 revised ruling. a hearing on defendants‘ reconsideration request was on july 21, 2009, the arbitrator scheduled a september 3, 2009 hearing on a variety of a list of not less than three (3) proposed arbitrators if reasonably practicable, showing the raised at the september 3, 2009 hearing which: overruled defendants‘ demurrer to the jurist would be able to be impartial. (§ 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(a)(iii); haworth v. superior arbitrators.‖].) once the challenge has been ruled upon by the superior court, the decision is final and we believe that sections 1281.9 and 1281.91, which are expressly superseded by adequately capitalized; mr. howsam used the forged instruments to secure funding for f. failure to decide all issues review of an award]; gueyffier v. ann summers, ltd. (2008) 43 cal.4th 1179, 1182 other discovery devices. thus, the arbitrator had the power to order mr. howsam be prejudiced them as they withdrew from the arbitral proceedings. objection. in connection with the unsealing proceedings, assistant united states [american arbitration association rules grant of power to arbitrator to decide greenlight (detailed below), and to simply continue greenlight‘s business, but under a proceeding to an analysis of the individual contentions, we note defendants withdrew 2004, defendants, other than mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc., filed a the first amended complaint, with its alter ego allegations, under the alliance‘s reasons. to begin with, they are expressly superseded. and section 1297.121 sets forth international arbitration rules. as noted, alliance rule 8.1 vests the arbitrator with the merely interim or interlocutory. [citations.] thus, to construe such language as forever on january 21 2008, after mr. howsam was indicted, and in response to a stay motion from in the first instance. if and only if, a determination that the interests of justice defendants argue the arbitrator exceeded his powers in two respects. initially, response to the challenge and the arbitrator‘s march 19, 2010 written analysis of the assignment notices provide in part: ―each of the parties hereto agrees that any dispute on may 4, 2009, plaintiff indicated its desire to resume arbitral proceedings to the moment. the arbitrator had no financial interest in plaintiff. the arbitrator disclosed his $18,204,236 plus interest from april 7, 2010; awarded plaintiff costs and attorneys fees; unwarranted departure from long-standing precedent.‖ (id.. at pp. 393-394.) against mr. howsam and harel goldstein. mr. goldstein was arrested by federal bureau conditions: [¶] (i) the person is or has been a party to the proceeding, or an officer, as noted, there was a video recording of the november 2, 2007 restaurant meeting this subdivision does not apply to arbitration proceedings conducted under a collective arbitrator or it is deemed waived.‖]; paramount unified school dist. v. teachers assn. of act, to avoid severe and unavoidable prejudice, cost and unnecessary expense, my clients 362, § 5, p. 3491.) we have examined the committee reports prepared in connection with matter has been submitted for decision solely because of a party‘s failure to pay the referred to in sections 1297.124 and 1297.125, whichever shall be later, send a written interest of expeditious resolution of the dispute designate the new arbitrator without 1991, ch. 820, § 5, p. 3652.) our supreme court analyzed whether this language barred same defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. when their motion to compel was undue means. they argue that: there were ex parte communications between the on april 12, 2010, plaintiff presented its evidence in a default hearing. on april to these canadian parties. (see e.g. the canada evidence act (revised statues of canada, would sanction fraud and promote injustice. the howsam parties and howsam are times relevant hereto, the howsam parties, and each of them, was the agent, partner or in the bankruptcy court. the adversary proceeding sought a determination that 2009, of mr. howsam and greenlight film & television inc. to stay the arbitration vacatur under california law. (siegel v. prudential ins. co. (1998) 67 cal.app.4th 1270, guess? inc. (2003) 112 cal.app.4th 810, 813, 827; pacific crown distributers v. circumstances, the trial court was not obligated to issue a statement of decision. her e-mail, ms. tommaselli requested a clarification as to what invoice was the subject of arbitrator shall have the right to require each party to deposit with the arbitral agent or 38 committee reports and numerous letters and memoranda before the legislature before that provincial law adopts a form of this country‘s self-incrimination protections. the not suppose perfection can fairly be required in the framing of a request for a statement of within 10 calendar days of the assignment of the arbitrator. (§ 1281.9, subd. (b).) there defendants argue the arbitrator exceed his powers. section 1286.2, subdivision reallocation of the arbitrator‘s fees previously paid, arbitrator strick‘s december 22, these corporations and created a new entity; the new entity received profitable assets inter-insurance exchange (1964) 229 cal.app.2d 269, 274; popcorn equipment co. v. challenge shall not be served on the arbitrator or any other party. the decision of the award any relief rationally related to his or her factual findings and contractual hand, and howsam, on the other hand, would permit an abuse of corporate privilege and arbitration agreement by which it bound itself.‖].) defendants argue the award should be vacated on various grounds. the case was agent determines whether to replace the arbitrator.4 means, a ninth circuit panel has defined the term thusly: ―although the term has not may be required from time to time under these rules. after the appointment of the arbitral agent shall designate an arbitrator from among them. if no proposed arbitrator back, gft heresy, gft-kotn, gft-ignition, and/or their agents and assigns, are the order are res judicata. (see, e.g., reeves v. hutson (1956) 144 cal.app.2d 445, the following allegations: the arbitrator‘s may 21, 2009 disclosure was untimely; there 203 cal.app.4th at pp. 373-375.) in the case of an ex parte communication between an scenario. the alliance‘s rule 14.3 provides: ―at any time after the commencement of the including his membership in the association of the bar of the city of new york. request was not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and one arbitrator pursuant to a contractual agreement to arbitrate is not subject to judicial review e. events occurring after the awards are returned his or her disqualification or after the filing of a statement of his or her disqualification other representative of the remaining howsam parties, and completely controlled, results of arbitrations within a five-year period. disclosure of enumerated factors in the issue enforced]; dream theater, inc. v. dream theater (2004) 124 cal.app.4th 547, 557 shall be designated by the arbitral agent in the same manner as set forth in this rule 6. dispute is not inconsistent with our recent decision in carpenters 46 no. cal. counties march 2, 2011. notice of entry of judgment was served on march 8, 2011. notices of plaintiff, mr. goldstein and his wife sought the protection of the bankruptcy courts. at c. events occurring after the stay was terminated and before demand the arbitration be conducted under the auspices of the independent film & 1297.17 states in part, ―[t]his title supersedes sections 1280 to 1284.2, inclusive, with arbitrator or conciliator in the proceedings. [¶] (iv) the person is known to have an reading analysis of sen. bill no. 475 (2001-2002 reg. sess.) as amended april 16, 2001; federal bank fraud investigation which targeted mr. howsam. mr. howsam was then requested a stay pending ruling on the unresolved mandate petitions and an expedited 53 a ground for vacating an international commercial arbitration award. defendants rely on certiorari petition in the united states supreme court challenging the december 15, 2004 (carpenters 46, supra, 96 f.3d at p. 415.) as can be noted, carpenters 46, supra, 96 deposition. on february 27, 2010, plaintiff noticed the deposition of mr. howsam. on compliance or may make a final award . . . . however, no default shall be found after the corruption, fraud or other undue means. no doubt, there are scenarios where an correspond in a meaningful way. for example, on december 3, 2009, 2.75 hours are shall be resolved by mandatory binding arbitration . . . .‖ the first amended complaint amended notice of arbitration also refers to the first amended complaint which alleges on march 3, 2010, kim tommaselli, the alliance‘s senior counsel wrote in an e- the arbitrator issued orders: limiting plaintiff‘s admission requests to five distinct areas; after the international commercial arbitration statutes were adopted. (stats. 2001, ch. 3. discovery orders distribution agreements; personally participated in one of the forgeries; during a video decision.‖ as can be noted, alliance rule 14.4 only prohibits the challenge being served 58 the collective bargaining agreement to the employees at the new store operated by or error complained of, to whatever class it may belong, must be of such a character that and pursuant to objections timely served in accordance with the california discovery complaint, on november 27, 1999, plaintiff made loans totaling $37 million to his fees in advance requires vacatur. the alliance‘s rules expressly provide for this greenlight film & television inc. which sought to stay the arbitration. (greenlight 1. background the time of appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, an arbitrator, shall, for the seven films. the security agreements in this case included provisions in which: and costs in the sum of $1,500,794.50; $34,587.50 in arbitrator fees; and $105,985.17 in such fees shall be borne by [plaintiff] and fifty percent by [defendants]) after the defendants assert the ex parte communication between the alliance officials and contract breach; fraud; conspiracy to defraud; fraudulent inducement; an accounting; costs and attorney fees awarded by arbitrator, defendants withdrew from the arbitration g. mr. howsam‘s contention his self-incrimination rights were substantially the arbitration. (greenlight film & television inc. v. superior court (mar. 4, 2010, 19 days of receipt of the proposed list of arbitrators, each party shall return the list deleting of outstanding [alliance] arbitrator deposits in accordance with [alliance rule] 14.3.‖ defendants rely on retail clerks union v. l. bloom sons co. (1959) 173 cal.app.2d explain, the disclosure duties and the consequences of a failure to disclose differ in defendants assert the arbitrator failed to decide all of the issues submitted to him. may not be immediately appealed. (§ 1297.135.) but a disqualification issue can be court (2010) 50 cal.4th 372, 388-389; rebmann v. rohde (2011) 196 cal.app.4th 1283, had seen their use in an international arbitration; the hearings had exclusively been held plaintiff had posted $12,000 for arbitrator fees but defendants had deposited none. on merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.‖ our supreme court has the distribution agreements; other declarations established the distribution agreement signatory power over a client‘s (or clients‘) bank accounts. 6 part: ―[plaintiff] and its attorneys or agents further agree that should any party (other ego allegations. thus, defendants sought arbitration of the issues raised in the first states attorney, in a memorandum dated september 23, 2009, indicated the government directed at the trial court were insufficient to trigger the duty to prepare a statement of (a).6 be deemed to have been overruled. [¶] 6.6.5 in the event of the death, incapacity, that a corporation‘s dispute with a union was arbitrable because the corporation was the circumstance. citing section 1297.135, plaintiff argues this issue cannot even be raised arbitrator‘s february 28, 2010 invoice which included the $15,000 advance payment school dist. v. teachers assn. of paramount, supra, 26 cal.app.4th at p. 1386.) and as loans for the seven films. the collateral for the seven loans consisted of what the 34 et seq. (rev. # 1 2011) [―the request may ask for the legal/factual basis for the judge‘s february 28, 2010 invoice by 6.25 hours ($1,875). extrinsic fraud which denies a party a fair hearing may serve as a basis for vacating an by a subsequent ninth circuit opinion. in pacesetter const. v. carpenters 46 northern and then collaterally attack that procedure on grounds not raised before the arbitrators are found in sections 1297.11 through 1297.337. d. events occurring after defendants withdraw from the arbitration statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal.‖ even[t] that mr. howsam fails to appear for depositions as previously ordered and defendants had previously been ordered to pay three-fourths of the arbitrator‘s fees. in (los angeles county is acting or has acted as a lawyer in the proceeding. [¶] (iii) the person is known to have bloom‘s salinas, inc. (id. at p. 703.) l. bloom sons co. refused to apply the terms of the rights of the party complaining‖]; see moncharsh v. heily & blase, supra, 3 cal.4th adjudicate the alter ego issue. defendants withdrew from the arbitration arbitrator‘s billing errors can amount to corruption, fraud, or other undue means; but this on march 4, 2010, ms. starkey wrote the arbitrator: ―we have received your evidence outside the original arbitration proceedings such that appellants needed a further information concerning the settlement. the qualified confidentiality agreement states in goldstein and his counsel with written notice (together with a faxed version of the court mail objections to a deposition notice. the deposition notice required mr. howsam to 1279; knight et al., cal. practice guide: alternative dispute resolution (the rutter which may have existed between the howsam parties, on the one hand, and howsam, on mr. coate. plaintiff had sought a monetary sanctions award against a. raymond cal.app.4th 1359, 1372-1373 [―any claim of illegality must be raised before the 2009, plaintiff filed a first amended notice of arbitration. the first amended notice of decides whether to disqualify the arbitrator. if a challenge is unsuccessful, the matter and greenlight film & television inc. directed at the trial court‘s order refusing to stay march 5, 2010, mr. howsam objected to the deposition notice: ―[defendants] . . . object 45 this appeal from a judgment after confirmation of three international commercial 57 c. corruption, fraud or other undue means on august 20, 2010, defendants filed petitions to vacate the arbitration awards. plaintiff has been damaged in excess of $20 million. on september 9, 2009, the the mandatory arbitrator disclosures in international commercial arbitrations. (see fn. 8, jurisdiction. on january 3, 2008, the arbitrator denied defendants‘ motion to quash appellate court. our supreme court has repeatedly stated the right to appeal is statutory. frivolous. on march 11, 2010, mr. howsam‘s counsel, mr. coate, wrote to the arbitrator: not been paid. i would like to remind counsel that under [the alliance‘s] rules, failure to employment arrangements with a party; discussions with a party concerning possible according to the standard of morals which the law enforces.‘ ‗undue influence‘ means


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise