Rodrigues v. Keller (1980)

In Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 841 (Rodrigues), the Court of Appeal for the First District, Division One, explained other courts have held “that where the record shows that an issue has been submitted to an arbitrator and that he totally failed to consider it, such failure may constitute ‘other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title’ justifying vacation of the award under” the former version of section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5…

(Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 843 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ].)” (Ray Wilson Co. v. Anaheim Memorial Hospital Assn. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1081, 1091 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 62 ].) Additionally, “only a limited form of judicial review of arbitration awards is provided by statute. (§§ 1285-1288; Lehto v. Underground Constr.

(See Ulene v. Murray Millman of California, Inc. (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 655, 662 [affirming the court’s denial of motion to vacate an 16 arbitration award after holding “[t]here is no merit” to appellant’s contentions “that the alternative which the award gave [appellant] was vague and indefinite, [and] that it did not finally decide the issue before the arbitrator”]; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 430, 439 [reversing the court’s decisio…

(See Ulene v. Murray Millman of California, Inc. (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 655, 662 [affirming the court’s denial of motion to vacate an 16 arbitration award after holding “[t]here is no merit” to appellant’s contentions “that the alternative which the award gave [appellant] was vague and indefinite, [and] that it did not finally decide the issue before the arbitrator”]; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 430, 439 [reversing the court’s decisio…

(Rodrigues, supra, 113 Cal.App.3d at p. 841 [record did not demonstrate any issue was submitted to the arbitrator which he totally failed to consider]; Banks v. Milwaukee Ins.

As section 1283.4 requires an arbitral award to make “a determination of all the questions submitted to the arbitrators the decision of which is necessary in order to determine the controversy,” “[i]t has been held that where the record shows that an issue has been submitted to an arbitrator and that he totally failed to consider it, such failure may constitute ‘other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title’ justifying vacation of the award . . . …

(See, e.g., Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 841-842 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ].) It has been suggested that an ancient rule requires the award to be vacated under the circumstances we face here.

(See, e.g., Herman Feil, Inc. v. Design Center of Los Angeles (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1406, 1417-1418 [ 251 Cal.Rptr. 895 ]; Nogueiro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1195 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 478 ].) Here, Grill claims the trial court properly vacated the award because the arbitrator refused to decide all issues presented to him (see, e.g., Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 840-842 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ]) and because he made an error of law ap…

(Morris v. Zuckerman (1968) 69 Cal.2d 686, 691 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 880 , 446 P.2d 1000 ]; Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 843 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ]; Ray Wilson Co. v. Anaheim Memorial Hospital Assn., supra, 166 Cal.App.3d 1081, 1091 .) 2 The Idaho court rejected apportionment because it felt that apportionment presented the opportunity for chicanery.

Assn. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 763, 767-771 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 580 ] and cases there cited with Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 843 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ] and cases there cited.) We perceive no prejudice resulting from this erroneous assumption because there was no legal error in the arbitrators’ answer to the critical question.

(Morris v. Zuckerman (1968) 69 *364 Cal.2d 686, 691 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 880 , 446 P.2d 1000 ]; Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 843 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ]; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 430, 436-437 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 835 ].) An arbitrator may expressly or impliedly reject a claim that a party might successfully have asserted in a judicial action.

The merits of the controversy are for the arbitrator, not for the courts; it is not appropriate for a court to review the sufficiency of the evidence before the arbitrator or to pass upon the validity of the arbitrator’s reasoning. {Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 843 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ].) “Our review of the arbitrators’ decision is very narrow. ‘Whether they were right or wrong, the arbitrators decided the issue that was properly before them, and the decisi…

Proc., § 1288), and in response to respondent's petition to confirm the arbitration award submitted no declarations or other factual showing of actual bias or unfairness. *1041 The burden is on the party challenging an arbitration award to establish error or impropriety. ( Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal. App.3d 838, 842 [ 170 Cal. Rptr. 349 ]; Horn v. Gurewitz, supra, 261 Cal. App.2d 255, 261 .) In the absence of such a showing there is no cause to deny confirmation of t…

(Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 842 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ]; Horn v. Gurewitz, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 255, 261 .) In the absence of such a showing there is no cause to deny confirmation of the award.

Zaninovich, Inc. v. Teamster Farmworker Local Union 946 (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 410, 416 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 233 ]; cf. Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 841-842 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ].) Under applicable federal law, reversal of the entire matter would not be required—only remand to the arbitrator to cure the indefiniteness by computing the amount of back pay and those individuals to whom it is owed.

Proc, § 1286.2, subd. (a)(4).) "Unless one of the enumerated grounds exists, a court may not vacate an award even if it contains a legal or factual error on its face which results in substantial injustice." ( Marsch v. Williams (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 238, 243-244 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 .) An arbitrator does not exceed his or her powers by making a legal or factual error or by giving erroneous reasons for an award. ( Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 28 , 10 Cal…

(Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 28 ; see also Marsch v. Williams, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 243-244.) “[A]n arbitrator’s failure to render express findings on disputed questions does not invalidate the award where, as here, the award ‘ “serves to settle the entire controversy.” (Sapp v. Barenfeld [1949] 34 Cal.2d 515, 522-523 [ 212 P.2d 233 ].)’ (Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ].)” (Luster v. Collins (1993) 15 Cal.App…

(Olivera v. Modiano-Schneider, Inc. (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 9 , 14 *67 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 30 ]; see Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 841 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 349 ].) Further, courts must indulge every reasonable intendment to give effect to arbitration proceedings.