|
A California Court of Appeal held that a court ordering arbitration is not the only court with authority to confirm the subsequent award.
In Sternberg, Horner & Associates v. Emerald International Security Group, No. B183794, 2006 WL 2244321 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2006), Emerald moved the trial court to vacate an arbitration award. The trial court denied Emerald’s motion and confirmed the award.
On appeal, Emerald argued that the procedural aspects of the case were governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. Since he failed to raise this issue with the trial court, the Court held that he had waived the argument.
Emerald also argued that the arbitration award’s form of service, facsimile transmission, was improper. However, as the Court noted, Emerald agreed to accept “electronic service of the award” pursuant to the procedural rules governing the arbitration.
Lastly, Emerald argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the award because Sternberg did not file the motion in the court that granted Emerald’s motion to compel arbitration. In rejecting this argument, the Court stated: “Although Emerald correctly notes that [Sternberg] should have filed its petition to confirm the arbitration award in the same proceeding in which Emerald’s petition to compel the arbitration had been litigated, its failure to do so did not effect the court’s jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter.”
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|