Alphson and UCIP Holdings v. Nat. Distribution Agency, Inc. and Development Research Corp
Filed 6/2/06 Alphson and UCIP Holdings v. Nat. Distribution Agency, Inc. and Development Research Corp. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| JOHN ALPHSON and UCIP HOLDINGS, Plaintiffs and Appellants. v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION AGENCY, INC. and DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CORPORATION, Defendants and Respondents. | B187974 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS098790) |
APPEAL from an order and judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jon M. Mayeda, Judge. Affirmed.
Folger Levin & Kahn, Thomas P. Laffey and Wendy C. Stevens for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, Gregory M. Bordo and Armen G. Mitilian for Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs and appellants UCIP Holdings, LLC and John Alphson (collectively Holdings) appeal an order and judgment denying a petition to correct an arbitration award. Holdings asserts that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by failing to designate it as the prevailing party and award attorney fees. Holdings asserts that the trial court erred by denying its motion to correct the arbitration award to designate it as the prevailing party and award it attorney fees. We affirm the order and judgment. Pursuant to Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 782 (Moore), the decision by the arbitrator in this case not to designate a prevailing party did not exceed the arbitrator's powers. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying Holdings's motion to correct the arbitration award.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The Parties
The parties are partners in an entity entitled Union City Industrial Partners (the partnership). The purpose of the partnership appears to be real estate development and ownership.
Plaintiff and appellant UCIP Holdings, LLC is the managing partner of the partnership. Plaintiff and appellant John Alphson is the sole shareholder of appellant UCIP Holdings. As noted above, for convenience and ease of reference, these partners shall collectively be referred to as â€
