Guseinov v. Burns
Decision Date | 15 December 2006 |
Docket Number | No. B191645.,No. B188984.,B188984.,B191645. |
Parties | Gary GUSEINOV, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Stan BURNS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Stephan, Oringher, Richman, Theodora & Miller and Robert M. Dato, Costa Mesa, for Defendant and Appellant.
Lee & Kaufman, Martin J. Kaufman, Los Angeles; Michelman & Robinsion, Carol Boyd, Encino, and Tahereh Mahmoudian, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Stan Burns, appeals from a December 7, 2005 judgment and an April 13, 2006 amended judgment entered on an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff, Gary Guseinov. At issue is whether the arbitration award should have been vacated because the arbitrator failed to disclose he had served as an uncompensated mediator in another matter as part of a superior court program. In that matter, the arbitrator served as a pro bono mediator where plaintiffs attorney represented a party who has nothing to do with this case. We find there is substantial evidence no ground for disqualification exists; hence, the arbitrator had no duty to disclose his prior service as an uncompensated mediator. As a result, the trial court did not err in refusing to vacate the arbitration award because the arbitrator failed to disclose his prior service as an unpaid mediator. We affirm the judgment.
Plaintiff filed this action against defendant on October 10, 2003. Plaintiff asserted contract breach and tort causes of action, among others, based on a May 19, 2003 settlement agreement arising out of a failed business relationship. The May 19, 2003 settlement agreement included a clause requiring final and binding arbitration in Los Angeles, California pursuant to the American Arbitration Association's Commercial Dispute Resolution Procedures or Expedited Procedures. In a stipulation filed on December 16, 2003, the parties agreed to submit this action to arbitration. On September 12, 2005, the arbitrator awarded plaintiff more than $5 million dollars in damages. Also named as a codefendant was Synergy Ventures, Inc. doing business as Direct Synergy. The codefendant has filed a voluntary bankruptcy proceeding. The present appeal is stayed as to the codefendant.
The settlement agreement expressly stated it was to be governed by the laws of the State of California. The arbitration clause of the settlement agreement stated in pertinent part:
On June 16, 2004, following his selection, the arbitrator completed an American Arbitration Association "Arbitrator Disclosure Worksheet." The arbitrator therein represented among other things: he was not serving and had not served "as a dispute resolution neutral other than as an arbitrator in another pending or prior case involving a party or lawyer in the current arbitration"; he had no "professional relationship" with a lawyer for a party; and there was no "other matter that might cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that [he] would be able to be impartial."
At the first meeting of the attorneys in this matter, on or about August 12, 2004, the arbitrator asked plaintiffs counsel, Martin J. Kaufman, if they had previously met. Mr. Kaufman stated the arbitrator had earlier served as a volunteer superior court mediator in an unrelated matter. In that unrelated lawsuit, Mr. Kaufman had represented a party. The arbitrator did not recall the prior mediation. The attorneys representing defendant at that time acknowledged the disclosure, agreed to the arbitrator, and did not make an immediate effort to secure disqualification. Mr. Kaufman subsequently declared:
On or about May 20, 2005, during the arbitration, defendant filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Kaufman as plaintiffs counsel. In support of the disqualification motion filed with the arbitrator, plaintiff declared: At another place in his declaration, defendant related: In support of defendant's motion to vacate the arbitration award filed in the trial court, he declared: "On [May 20, 2005], [Mr. Kaufman] testified under oath ... in response to a question posed ... by [the arbitrator], that [the arbitrator] should believe [Mr. Kaufman] rather than [plaintiff] ... because of [the] prior relationship between [the arbitrator] and [Mr. Kaufman]." An attorney for defendant, Rod Rummelsburg, declared:
The arbitrator denied the motion to disqualify Mr. Kaufman. As set forth in the arbitration award, the arbitrator concluded the accusations were for the State Bar to consider: Later, the award states, "Accordingly, although [defendant] and [plaintiffs] counsel Martin Kaufman offered different versions of the interaction that allegedly occurred, the Arbitrator found no need to resolve the `swearing match' between them."
Just prior to closing argument on June 3, 2005, defendant sought to disqualify the arbitrator by serving a notice of disqualification. This was the second disqualification request. The first disqualification request sought to disqualify Mr. Kaufman as plaintiffs counsel. The second request sought to disqualify the mediator. The mediator requested briefing as to the disqualification request by June 10, 2005. The parties proceeded with closing argument. In a June 6, 2005 letter to counsel, the arbitrator stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Benjamin v. Kors
- Emerald Aero, LLC v. Kaplan
-
Haworth v. The Superior Court Of Los Angeles County
... ... Guseinov v. Burns (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 944, 957, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 903 (concluding “substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that ... ...
-
Haworth v. Superior Court
...that might indicate bias is a question of fact for the trial court and is entitled to deferential review. (Guseinov v. Burns (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 944, 957 (Guseinov).) Nevertheless, the parties suggest that a de novo standard of review should be applied in this case because the facts unde......
-
Trouble in the World of Hawaii Arbitration Due to Vacature for Arbitrator Nondisclosure
...Cir. 1996).21. Casden Park La Brea Retail LLC v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc., 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 763 (Ct.App. 2008).22. Guseinov v. Burns, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 903 (Ct.App. 2006).23. Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v. All American Life Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 617, 623 (7th Cir. 2002).24. HRS § 658A-12.25. 136 Haw. 2......