Appellate Court Found Incremental Award Process Appropriate Under The Circumstances.
In EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., Case No. B281594 (2d Dist., Divl 2 Mar. 28, 2018) (published), respondent in an arbitration obtained an arbitration award requiring appellant to defend respondent in a lawsuit brought by appellant’s bus drivers, which arbitration award was confirmed as a judgment. While the petition to confirm the merits award as a judgment was pending, a JAMS appellate panel decided that appellant owed respondent $41,429.92 in arbitration costs, an award which was separately confirmed by the superior court as a judgment.
On appeal, appellant argued that the entry of two judgments resulting from the same arbitration violated the “one final judgment” rule. The appellate court said “naught.” Instead, it found that an incremental award process is appropriate where not all of the issues were resolved at the time of the initial partial arbitration award. (Cf. Hightower v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1434 (2001).) With respect to a waiver/estoppel argument, this was rejected based on the conclusion that a winning party necessarily does not need to submit costs simultaneously for adjudication with the substantive arbitration award given no one knows who won or lost (or partially did so).