Benson v. Enloe Medical Center et al

Filing 23

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 4/9/2018 RECOMMENDING that Defendants' 17 motion for confirmation of the 7/7/2017, arbitration award be granted. The 7/7/2017 arbitration award be confirmed. All other pending 13 , 15 , 16 motions be denied. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this file. Motions referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DOUGLAS BENSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-CV-2053-JAM-CMK

vs.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. On November 12,

18

2015, the matter was stayed pending arbitration. On September 8, 2017, defendants filed a status

19

report indicating that a final binding arbitration decision had been issued on July 7, 2017.

20

Pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff’s “Notice of Appeal” of the arbitration award (Doc.

21

13); (2) plaintiff’s request to vacate the arbitration award (Doc. 15); (3) plaintiff’s motion to

22

proceed with the case (Doc. 16); and (4) defendants’ motion for confirmation of the arbitration

23

award (Doc. 17). A hearing was held before the undersigned on January 10, 2018. Plaintiff

24

appeared pro se. Ruby Wood, Esq., appeared for defendants. Upon completion of argument, the

25

matter was submitted.

26

///
1

1
2

I. BACKGROUND
This matter was removed by defendants from the Butte County Superior Court on

3

September 30, 2015. On October 7, 2015, defendants filed a motion to compel binding

4

arbitration pursuant to the agreements of the parties. Plaintiff did not oppose that motion. On

5

November 12, 2015, the District Judge issued a minute order granting defendants’ motion to

6

compel arbitration and stay proceedings, concluding that the parties had entered into a valid

7

arbitration agreement encompassing all the claims raised in the complaint. On September 8,

8

2017, defendants filed a status report indicating that a final and binding arbitration decision had

9

been issued on July 7, 2017, and that a stipulation for dismissal had been presented to plaintiff.

10

On September 7, 2017, plaintiff filed his own status report indicating that he would agree to

11

dismissal of the action. On October 11, 2017, the court lifted the stay entered on November 12,

12

2015, and directed defendants to file a response to the complaint within 30 days. The current

13

motions followed.

14
15
16

II. DISCUSSION
It is undisputed that the parties entered into valid agreements providing for

17

binding arbitration on all the claims encompassed by plaintiff’s complaint. It is also undisputed

18

that an arbitration was held and that a final award in defendants’ favor was issued on July 7,

19

2017. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9, and the California Arbitration Act, Cal.

20

Code Civil Pro. § 1286, the court must confirm an arbitration award. See Hall Street Assoc. LLC

21

v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 1396 (2008); see also Kyocera Corp. V. Prudential-Bache Trade

22

Services, Inc., 341 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2003); Romero v. Citibank USA, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1010

23

(E.D. Cal. 2008). Judicial involvement is limited to determining whether statutory grounds to

24

vacate or correct an arbitration award exist. See Corona v. Amherst Partners, 107 Cal. App. 4th

25

700 (2003). The arbitrator’s findings on questions of facts and conclusions on questions of law

26

are conclusive. See Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal. 4th 1 (1992). Given the strong policy
2

1

expectation that arbitration awards be accorded finality, any judicial review must be deferential.

2

See Marsch v. Williams, 23 Cal. App. 4th 238 (1994); see also Coutee v. Barington Capitol

3

Group, L.P., 336 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts may not review the merits of the

4

controversy, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award, or the validity of the

5

arbitrator’s reasons. See Moncharsh, 3 Cal. 4th at 10.

6

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitration award may be vacated if: (1) it is

7

procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or

8

corruption in the arbitrator; (3) where the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in refusing to

9

postpone a hearing, in refusing to hear evidence, or any other misbehavior resulting in prejudice;

10

or (4) where the arbitrator so exceeded his powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a

11

mutual, final, and definite award on the merits was not made. See 9 U.S.C. § 10. An arbitration

12

award may be modified or corrected under the Federal Arbitration Act in the following

13

circumstances: (1) where there was a material miscalculation of figures or material mistake in the

14

description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award; or (2) where the arbitrator

15

has awarded on a matter not submitted to him. See 9 U.S.C. § 11. Similarly, under the

16

California Arbitration Act, an arbitration award may be vacated in the following situations:

17

(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) the arbitrator was corrupt;

18

(3) the rights of the parties were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of the arbitrator; (4) the

19

arbitrator exceeded his powers; (5) the rights of the parties were prejudiced by the arbitrator’s

20

refusal to postpone the hearing or hear material evidence; (6) or the arbitrator failed to disclose a

21

grounds for disqualification or was subject to disqualification. See Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1286.2.

22

According to plaintiff, the arbitrator failed to protect his statutory rights under

23

California Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 and California Business and Professions Code § 809.

24

A review of plaintiff’s filings, however, reflects that he is challenging the arbitrator’s assessment

25

of the facts and the application of the law to those facts. For example, plaintiff repeatedly argues

26

that the arbitrator’s factual finding was erroneous. Plaintiff also argues that the evidence was
3

1

insufficient to support the award. As defendants correctly note, such arguments are beyond the

2

scope of judicial review. See Moncharsh, 3 Cal. 4th at 10.

3

At the hearing, plaintiff argued that he never agreed to binding arbitration and that

4

his prior counsel had coerced him into the process. This argument is also unavailing. First, the

5

court notes that plaintiff never raised this argument in the context of the arbitration. Second,

6

plaintiff did not oppose defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Third, in ordering the parties

7

to participate in arbitration, the District Judge found the arbitration agreements to be valid.

8
9

III. CONCLUSION

10

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

11

1.

12

Defendants’ motion for confirmation of the July 7, 2017, arbitration award

(Doc. 17) be granted;

13

2.

The July 7, 2017, arbitration award be confirmed;

14

3.

All other pending motions (Docs. 13, 15, and 16) be denied; and

15

4.

The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this file.

16

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

17

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

18

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

19

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

20

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.

21

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22
23
24
25

DATED: April 9, 2018
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
4