Revised Award Was Not A Mere Correction, But A Substantive Merits Reconsideration And Impermissible New Award.
Taska v. TheRealReal, Inc., Case No. A164130 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 4, 2022) (published) was a situation where an arbitrator found in employer’s favor on the merits and denied employer’s fee request after finding employee’s case was not frivolous in an initial award. But that was hardly the end of the matter. Employer took a “second bite” at a fees/costs request, with the arbitrator reversing course and awarding it $53,705.43 in a revised arbitration award after finding employee’s failure to testify truthfully did render her case frivolous in nature. (Then, later, the arbitrator issued a corrected final award increasing the fees and costs award to $73,756.43.) When it came time to confirm and vacate the revised arbitration award, the lower court sustained the merits determination but struck the award of fees and costs because the arbitrator exceeded her authority by amending the initial award denying fees and costs.
The 1/5 DCA affirmed. The initial award did determine the merits and fees/costs entitlement, with the appellate court rejecting that this initial determination was just a “placeholder” for a further final fees/costs determination or correction. Rather, the revised and corrected awards were not mere math corrections or inadvertent corrections, but substantive new determinations which were not allowed under the contractual arbitration statutory scheme. (See Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corp., 230 Cal.App.4th 1, 14, 18-19 (2014); Landis v. Pinkertons, Inc., 122 Cal.App.4th 985, 992 (2004).)