BAIZE v. EASTRIDGE COMPANIES
Filed 8/25/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| JEFFREY BAIZE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. EASTRIDGE COMPANIES et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B185823 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC066212) |
| JEFFREY BAIZE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. TECLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B188433 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC066212) |
APPEAL from a judgment and post-judgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard B. Wolfe, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Michael R. Palumbo and Michael J. Farrell for Defendants and Appellants.
Law Offices of Lyle F. Greenberg, Lyle F. Greenberg and Michael M. Hernandez for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
In these consolidated proceedings, the parties to a wrongful termination action agreed to submit their dispute to binding arbitration, pursuant to an agreement by which the arbitrator was required to apply California law. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of the former employee, who then petitioned to confirm the award. The employer opposed, and moved to vacate the award, on the basis that the arbitrator had failed to correctly apply California law. The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the arbitrator's award for errors of law, and entered judgment in accordance with the arbitrator's award. The employer appeals. (No. B185823.) A contractual provision requiring that the arbitrator apply California law does not mandate a different conclusion. There is no indication in this record that the arbitrator was applying any law other than that of California. It is only claimed that he did not apply that law correctly. We therefore will affirm. An arbitrator's award is not reviewable for claimed errors of law.
After the trial court had entered judgment confirming the award, the former employee moved to amend the judgment to add as a defendant another corporation which was alleged to be an alter ego of the defendant. The trial court reviewed the evidence and concluded, based on multiple factors, that the alleged alter ego was, in fact, an alter ego of the defendant, and amended the judgment accordingly. Both corporations appeal (No. B188433), arguing only that the trial court erred in concluding that evidence of common ownership is insufficient, â€
