REFUSAL TO ADMIT EVIDENCE

Plantations at Haywood I v. Plantations at Haywood LLC, 108 Cal. App. 5th 803

Attorney Catanzarite was sanctioned in the amount of $37,000 because he filed a frivolous opposition to a motion to confirm filed by defendant Plantations and then refused to withdraw the opposition. In his motion, Catanzarite contended that the arbitrator’s decision to admit evidence submitted by Catanzarite was a sham to avoid vacatur because he had no intention to consider the evidence. Catanzarite appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

In moving to vacate the award in this case, Catanzarite relied on Code of Civ. Proc. sections 1286.2(a)(4) and (5), as he argued that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by refusing to properly consider the evidence Catanzarite submitted on behalf of his clients. Catanzarite sought to prove his contention by providing the trial court with selected documents he acknowledged had been admitted into evidence during the arbitration and then arguing that because the arbitrator's award was (in his view) inconsistent with the content of those documents, it proved the arbitrator must have improperly refused to “hear” (i.e., consider) them.

The court disagreed with Catanzarite's argument. The assertion that the arbitrator exceeded his powers under 1286.2(a)(4), because he erred in evaluating the evidence was directly contrary to Moncharsh v, Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 1. Catanzarite's reliance on section 1286.2(a)(5) fared no better. The assertion that the arbitrator failed to “hear” the evidence he admitted was directly contradicted by Gonzales v. Interinsurance Exchange (1978), 84 Cal.App.3d 58. Catanzarite relied upon Burlage v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal. App. 524, which was disapproved by the Supreme Court in Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 350, to support his contention that “hearing” evidence must include considering it.