Woodman Investment Group v. Superior Court
The trial court proceedings below commenced with cross petitions to confirm and vacate an arbitration award rendered in favor of Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Brokerage Investment Company (Marcus & Millichap). In the petition to vacate, Woodman Investment Group, LLC (Woodman) and Eli Sasson argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over Sasson because he was not a signatory to the agreement between Marcus & Millichap and Woodman which included the arbitration clause. The trial court denied Marcus & Millichaps petition to confirm and granted the petition to vacate the award on the ground the arbitrator exceeded her powers and the award could not be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision. The court did not issue an order for rehearing under Code of Civil Procedure section 1287[1] and Marcus & Millichap did not appeal the order vacating the award. Subsequently, Marcus & Millichap moved the trial court for an order compelling Sasson to arbitrate the dispute and also filed a new demand for arbitration against Woodman with the American Arbitration Association. The trial court granted Marcus & Millichaps motion to compel arbitration, finding Sasson was the alter ego of Woodman. About a year and a half later, while the second arbitration was still pending, the trial court issued an unsigned minute order dismissing the trial court proceedings on the ground the proceedings were final and the court lacked jurisdiction to act further.
Woodman and Sasson contend they should not have to arbitrate this dispute for a second time because the trial court did not order a rehearing at the time it made the order vacating the arbitration award or at any time before the order vacating the arbitration award became final. They challenge the order compelling Sasson to arbitration and a subsequent order in which the trial court concluded a rehearing in arbitration is not barred based on the fact the court did not specifically order a rehearing in conjunction with the order vacating the arbitration award. Woodman and Sasson attempted to obtain appellate review of these orders through an appeal from the order dismissing the trial court proceedings. As discussed below, an unsigned minute order dismissing an action is not an appealable order. Based on the unusual circumstances presented in this case, however, Court have decided not to dismiss the appeal and instead to treat the improper appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. Court conclude the trial court had jurisdiction to decide the motion to compel arbitration despite the fact there was no order for rehearing, and substantial evidence supports the courts finding Sasson is the alter ego of Woodman. Accordingly, Court deny the petition for writ of mandate.
Comments on Woodman Investment Group v. Superior Court