Fee Clause Interpretation By Arbitrator, Even If Incorrect, Was Unreviewable In Nature.
Arbitration is in vogue, but it gives tremendous discretion to the arbitrator and, in most instances, the awards are not reviewable even if factually and/or legally erroneous in nature.
Engel & Engel, LLP v. DeLong, Case No. B279576 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 29, 2018) (unpublished) illustrates that well with respect to incremental fees and costs awards by arbitrators.
Accounting firm plaintiff won a binding arbitration against defendants, with the arbitrator making a merits award of $27,100.13 plus undetermined interest and costs. Later, the arbitrator awarded plaintiff $15,213.89 in costs and $28,000 in attorney’s fees under a contractual arbitration clause on an “incremental basis.” The superior court confirmed the arbitration award, granting additional fees and costs to the successful arbitration panel.
The appellate court affirmed. The arbitrator’s fee clause interpretation, right or wrong, was unreviewable, even though the broad authority over “disputes between the parties” did allow fee entitlement for quantum meruit awards. Incremental awards by arbitrators are very common, and a proper method to award fees and costs after merits awards. (Hightower v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1434 (2001); EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1065-1066 (2018).) Finally, a superior court does have authority to award additional fees and costs for post-arbitration confirmation activities.