Second District, Division Three Has Difference in Opinion on Impact of Unopposed Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award.
Here is an interesting one for you. Clients soundly beat their former attorneys in a contractual arbitration: attorneys sought to recover $604,113.43 in fees for services rendered, while the arbitrator only awarded them $34,196.60—“a fraction of the amount sought” based largely on ethical breach violations. Attorneys were not happy at all (can you blame them), moving to vacate the arbitration award in superior court. Clients did not timely respond, but did file a petition to confirm the arbitration award. The vacate petition was denied, but the confirmation petition was granted. Attorneys were even more miffed and appealed.
Result? Affirmance, in a 2-1 opinion authored by Justice Croskey in Taheri Law Group, A.P.C. v. Sorokurs, Case No. B202693 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 18, 2009) (certified for publication) on behalf of the majority.
For the majority, Justice Croskey basically determined that an unopposed petition to vacate only admitted factual matters, but not pled legal conclusions. Courts then have the power to draw their own legal conclusions and confirm, correct, or vacate the award as necessary. Even giving deference to the factual concessions, no legal conclusions followed that would require vacating of the arbitration award in favor of clients.
Presiding Justice Klein, in dissent, saw things differently. She believed that the factual concessions were dispositive such that “overburdened trial courts” should not have to further scrutinize unopposed petitions to vacate. Justice Klein would have granted attorneys’ petition to vacate based on the clients’ failure to controvert.
HAIRCUT. June, 1941. William Perlitch, photographer. Library of Congress.