Tanidjaja v. Dolezal
Filed 8/29/06 Tanidjaja v. Dolezal CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| STEPHE TANIDJAJA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. WARREN F. DOLEZAL et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B185260 (Super. Ct. No. KC 040291G) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Daniel J. Buckley, Judge. Affirmed.
________
John F. Hodges; and Robert E. Knudsen for Defendants and Appellants Warren F. Dolezal and The Dolezal Company.
Best Best & Krieger, Howard B. Golds and Mathew L. Larsen for Plaintiffs and Respondents Stephe Tanidjaja and Thresiana Muliadi.
_________
Warren F. Dolezal and The Dolezal Company appeal from the trial court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Stephe Tanidjaja and Thresiana Muliadi (the Tanidjajas). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
This dispute concerns real property (the burdened property) located in Diamond Bar, California. In 2002, the Tanidjajas bought the burdened property from The Dolezal Company, of which Dolezal was then president.
After the Tanidjajas purchased the burdened property, the Tanidjajas, Dolezal, and The Dolezal Company were sued by a neighboring landowner that claimed to own certain easements burdening the burdened property. The Tanidjajas cross-complained against Dolezal and The Dolezal Company, alleging multiple claims including breach of contract, breach of the warranty against encumbrances, and fraud. The gravamen of the Tanidjajas’ cross-complaint was that Dolezal and The Dolezal Company had defrauded the Tanidjajas by failing to disclose the neighboring landowner’s claims, of which Dolezal was aware.
Dolezal and The Dolezal Company moved to compel arbitration of the Tanidjajas’ cross-complaint, and the trial court ultimately granted the motion to compel and severed the cross-complaint from the rest of the action. The arbitration was conducted in October and November 2002. The arbitrator issued an interim award concerning liability on December 15, 2004, an interim award concerning damages on December 29, 2004, and a final arbitration award on February 22, 2005. The arbitrator found in favor of the Tanidjajas and awarded them $862,189.90 in damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
On March 25, 2005, the Tanidjajas petitioned the superior court to confirm the arbitration award. Dolezal and The Dolezal Company opposed the petition on the ground that the award was based in part on the judgment entered by the superior court in the neighboring landowner’s original lawsuit, which was then on appeal, so in order to avoid the possibility of inconsistent judgments, the petition to confirm the award should be stayed or continued until the judgment in the original lawsuit became final.
The court denied the request to stay or continue and entered judgment confirming the arbitration award on May 11, 2005. Dolezal and The Dolezal Company timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to stay or continue the Tanidjajas’ petition until the judgment in the neighboring landowner’s lawsuit became final, because a reversal on appeal in that lawsuit could result in inconsistent judgments. Assuming for the sake of argument that the trial court’s refusal to stay the petition was an abuse of discretion, appellants cannot show prejudice, because we have affirmed the judgment in the neighboring landowner’s lawsuit. (Las Brisas-Diamond Bar Homeowners’ Association v. Dolezal (Aug. 24, 2006, B180907) [nonpub. opn.].) Accordingly, we affirm. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 475 (error does not warrant reversal unless it is prejudicial).)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
We concur:
SPENCER, P.J.
MALLANO, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
