Parties Reached A Broad Stipulation To Allow Fee Motions To Be Resolved By The Arbitrator, With Only Unreviewable Legal Error Being Unchallenged.
This next case may be a good reminder to make sure that arbitration stipulations are narrowly worded and possibly provide for more scrutinized review; if not, the broad stipulations will be enforced as written, and arbitral decisions will be confirmed/affirmed based on the latitude provided to arbitrators under California law.
Unfortunately for the losing plaintiff, that is what occurred in The Waffle v. Tucker Investment Group, LLC, Case No. B341347 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 18, 2026) (unpublished).
There, plaintiff and defendants got involved in a commercial lease brouhaha, with a jury verdict resolving some claims but deadlocking on others, with the parties agreeing to arbitrate the deadlocked claims. In doing so, however, parties gave broad authority to the arbitrator to resolve the remaining disputes, including motions for attorney’s fees. The arbitrator did that on fees, awarding prevailing defendant around $2.2 million in fees, allegedly failing to apportion out work involving settling defendants which did not seek fees. The lower court confirmed the arbitration award, including the fee recovery.
The appellate court affirmed. Based on the parties’ broad stipulation with no caveats, only legal error by the arbitrator in awarding fees was challenged. However, that was foreclosed by decisions such as Moncharch, Harris, and Moore, not to mention that apportionment is a discretionary decision by an arbitrator or the court.