Appellant savings and loan challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which confirmed arbitration awards in favor of appellees joint venturers and awarded them attorney fees and costs. Appellant argued that the arbitration proceedings were so unfair the resulting award should have been vacated.
Table of Contents
Overview
In a dispute over a joint venture agreement, appellant savings and loan sued appellees joint venturers for nonpayment of a promissory note and appellees petitioned the trial court to compel arbitration of the dispute. The trial court compelled arbitration of the matter and subsequently affirmed the arbitration award in appellees’ favor. On appeal, the court considered three issues involving interpretation of the agreement. First, was the arbitration provision unconscionable and therefore unenforceable; second, were the arbitrators empowered to award punitive damages; and third, were awards of attorney fees and costs authorized? The claimant had a business lawyer San Diego prepare the agreement which was executed by the parties. The court held that unconscionability of an arbitration provision or another contractual clause must be measured at the time the agreement was made and there was no inherent unconscionability in the parties’ arbitration agreement. The court further held that the arbitrators’ award of punitive damages was not, as a matter of law, in excess of the arbitrators’ powers. The court also found that the arbitration agreement allowed an award of attorney fees.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the basis that the parties’ arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and allowed for an award of punitive damages and attorney fees.
Procedural Posture
Appellant deputy sheriff sued respondent, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, for breach of a settlement agreement that was entered in prior litigation and for violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR), Gov. Code, § 3300, et seq. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, entered judgment and a cost award for the Department, and the deputy appealed.
Overview
The deputy alleged that the Department violated the POBR when it reassigned him from a helicopter pilot position to a detective position. The reviewing court found that summary adjudication was proper on the POBR issue because no “punitive action” was taken within the meaning of Gov. Code, §§ 3303, 3304, subd. (d)(4). The deputy retained the same rank and rate of pay in the new position. Further, the transfer was not imposed for a punitive purpose; he was transferred because of a lack of harmony and cooperation. As to the contract claim, the deputy was not entitled to a jury trial because he sought primarily equitable relief. Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s construction of the agreement. The court also held that it was not an abuse of discretion to award the Department costs under Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(4), for photocopies of exhibits that were not used at trial because nothing indicated that the department could have anticipated that the exhibits would not be used. Further, the deputy did not make a specific showing that the 15 cents cost per page was excessive, despite his ability to obtain copies for six cents per page at a retail establishment.
Outcome
The court reversed the cost award with regard to one item as to which the department conceded error. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment.
