Procedural Posture

Plaintiff attorney appealed an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied the attorney's petition to confirm an amended Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq., award. Defendant client cross-appealed an order denying his motion for attorney fees under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6203, subd. (c).

Overview

The attorney was not satisfied with the amount awarded to him by the arbitrators and petitioned the trial court to correct the award to include additional sums for prejudgment interest, fees, and costs not previously awarded. A provision within settlement CCP 1001 – Confidential Settlement Agreements and all things. The client filed a response to the attorney's petition but failed to ask the trial court to confirm the award. The trial court denied the petition without confirming the award. The attorney returned to the arbitrators and obtained an amended award. The client filed a request for a trial de novo. The attorney then petitioned the trial court to confirm the amended award. The court concluded that the trial court erred in its ruling on the petition to correct the award. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1286, the trial court was required to confirm the initial award because it did not correct the award, vacate the award, or dismiss the petition. The attorney was not entitled under Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.6, subd. (a), to correct the award because there was no mathematical error. The trial court properly exercised its discretion to deny attorney fees because the client's failure to ask the trial court to confirm the award had resulted in unnecessary proceedings.

Outcome

The court vacated the order that had denied the petition to confirm the amended arbitration award, remanded to the trial court with directions to confirm the initial arbitration award and to vacate the amended arbitration award, and affirmed the order denying the client's motion for attorney fees.

Procedural Posture

Appellant lessor brought an action to recover unpaid rents from respondent corporation, alleging it was the alter-ego of respondent lessee. The Superior Court of Alameda County (California) entered judgment in favor of the lessor against the lessee, and in favor of the corporation. The lessor appealed the judgment in favor of the corporation.

Overview

Upon the lessee's default of rent and vacation of the premises, the lessor relet the premises to a sublessee on the lessee's behalf, at a monthly rental which was less than what the lessee was obligated to pay under the lease. The lessor sought to impose liability for the difference upon a corporation on the theory that the corporation was the alter ego of the lessees. The lessor argued that there was uncontroverted evidence that disclosed factors which required that the corporate entity be disregarded, and that the two elements of unity of ownership and inequity were so conclusively present as to compel the disregard of the corporate entity. The court disagreed and held that there was ample evidence to support the inferences drawn by the lower court that there was not such a unity of interest and ownership as between the lessee and the corporation as to destroy the individuality of the corporations and the stock owners. The court held that evidence of inadequate capitalization was merely a factor to be considered by the lower court in deciding whether or not to pierce the corporate veil, but there was evidence that supported the finding of adequate capitalization.

Outcome

The judgment in favor of the corporation was affirmed.