KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP VS. TAI-YEU HSIA, ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Monday, September 29, 2025, Line 10. PLAINTIFF KATZOFF & RIGGS LLP's Hearing On Petition Of Plaintiff Katzoff & Riggs Llp To Confirm Binding Arbitration Award.

Plaintiff and petitioner Katzoff & Riggs LLP's petition to confirm the arbitration award (Attachment 6(c) to the petition) is granted. The grounds to vacate an arbitration award are extremely narrow. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 13 ["the general rule [is] that an arbitrator's decision is not ordinarily reviewable for error by either the trial or appellate courts"]; Zazueta v. County of San Benito (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 106, 110 ["Judicial review of arbitration awards is limited"].)

Defendant Tai-Yeu Hsia contends the award should be vacated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5), where a party's rights are substantially prejudiced by the arbitrator's refusal to hear material evidence. Defendant argues that defendant was prevented from fully presenting argument and evidence but offers no declaration in support and does not specify what evidence was excluded. "When a party contends it was substantially prejudiced by the arbitrator's exclusion of material evidence, a court should generally consider prejudice before materiality. To find substantial prejudice, the court must first accept the arbitrator's theory and conclude the arbitrator might well have made a different award had the evidence been allowed." (Epic Medical Management, LLC v. Paquette (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 504, 518 [citation omitted].)

Here, defendant does not specify what evidence was excluded, and the arbitrators' statement of decision describes defendant's contentions, indicating that the arbitrators considered and rejected them. Defendant does not meet the burden of showing that any evidence he offered was excluded and was material under the arbitrators' theory of the case. Similarly, his contention that the arbitrators were biased because they did not give him sufficient time to argue is too vague and unsupported to afford relief. Defendant identifies no argument he was prevented from making or why it would have altered the outcome.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.