California
Appeals
Standard of Review

Standard of Review-Order vacating an arbitration award de novo-Haworth v. Super. Ct.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

            Generally, we review an order vacating an arbitration award de novo.  (Malek v. Blue Cross of California (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 44, 55-56; Reed v. Mutual Service Corp. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1364-1365 (Reed).)  However, factual determinations underlying the order are reviewed for substantial evidence.  (Reed, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 1365; Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 919, 923 (Betz I).)  This court has specifically held that whether an arbitrator had a duty to disclose information that might indicate bias is a question of fact for the trial court and is entitled to deferential review.  (Guseinov v. Burns (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 944, 957 (Guseinov).)

            Nevertheless, the parties suggest that a de novo standard of review should be applied in this case because the facts underlying respondent court’s determination that a reasonable person might doubt Judge Gordon’s ability to be impartial are undisputed.  There are cases suggesting that when the facts allegedly demonstrating bias are not in dispute, a de novo standard of review may be applied.  (Casden Park La Brea Retail, LLC v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 468, 476, fn. 7; Betz v. Pankow (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1503, 1508 (Betz III).)  However, the weight of authority applies the substantial evidence standard of review, even when the underlying facts are undisputed, recognizing that the question of whether the particular circumstances of a case require disclosure is itself a factual determination for the trial court to make.  (E.g., Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP v. Koch (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 720, 734 [arbitrator served with party’s lawyer and witness on boards of professional organizations]; Guseinov, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at pp. 951, 957 [arbitrator served as an uncompensated mediator in a prior case in which plaintiff’s attorney represented a party]; O’Flaherty v. Belgum (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1105-1106 [dis. opn. of Grignon, J.] [arbitrator in law firm dissolution was previously represented by the law firm for some parties and had separated from his own law firm in difficult circumstances]; Reed, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1370-1371 [arbitrators had a practice of entertaining pre-arbitration motions to limit or dismiss arbitrable claims]; Michael v. Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 925, 931, 933 (Michael) [arbitrator had prior and ongoing relationship with the defendant]; see also, Figi v. New Hampshire Ins. Co. (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 772, 776.)  While we recognize the conflict in the authorities as to the correct standard of review, we need not attempt to resolve the dispute, as our decision would be the same under either standard.

See Majority Opinion-Standard of Review-order vacating an arbitration award Substantial Evidence-Haworth v. Super. Ct.

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Standard of Review-Table of Contents
Briefs-Legal Argument-Table of Contents