California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Newmeyer & Dillion LLP v. Vanefsky, G051000 (Cal. App. 2016):
"The scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow because of the strong public policy in favor of arbitration and according finality to arbitration awards. [Citations.] An arbitrator's decision generally is not reviewable for errors of fact or law. [Citations.] However, . . . section 1286.2 provides limited exceptions to this general rule, including an exception where '[t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.' [Citations.] '[W]hether the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers . . . , and thus whether the award should have been vacated on that basis, is reviewed on appeal de novo.' [Citation.]" (Ahdout v. Hekmatjah (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 21, 33.)
An arbitrator may exceed his or her powers by, among other things, ruling on an issue the parties have not agreed to arbitrate (City of Richmond v. Service Employees Internat. Union, Local 1021 (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 663, 669-670), or conducting an arbitration where "no agreement to arbitrate exist[s]." (Northern Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Robles Concrete Co. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 289, 294 [arbitration award vacated where arbitration agreement had been repudiated].)
Page 9
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.