Mt. Holyoke Homes L.P. v. Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP

MT. HOLYOKE HOMES, L.P., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER

& MITCHELL, LLP et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

No. B243912

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC430142)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Three

Filed October 21, 2013

ORDER

     (1) MODIFYING OPINION
     (2) DENYING PETITION
           FOR REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

     It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 24, 2013, be modified as follows:

     (1)On page 18, line 8, at the end of sentence ending with the words ?? in a legal malpractice action.?, insert the following sentence:  Our conclusion is the same even if we assume the truth of the facts stated in the Chernow declaration.

     (2)Page 18, line 13, delete the entire paragraph beginning on line 13 with the words ?We reject Defendants argument ?? and ending on line 20 with the words ?? make the required disclosure.?

     (3)Page 18, line 13, insert new paragraph which reads as follows:

   Defendants argue that Jones had constructive knowledge that Judge Chernow had listed Mangels as a reference on his resume because his resume was readily discoverable on the Internet.  They argue that her constructive knowledge precludes vacating the award based on the nondisclosure of that information.  We disagree.  A party to an arbitration is not required to investigate a proposed neutral arbitrator in order to discover information, even public information, that the arbitrator is obligated to disclose.  (Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 937; cf. Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 415, 425 [discussing judicial disqualification].)  Instead, the obligation rests on the arbitrator to timely make the required disclosure.  The fact that the information is readily discoverable neither relieves an arbitrator of the duty to disclose nor precludes vacating the award based on the nondisclosure.

     (4)Page 21, line 5, at the end of the sentence ending with the words ?? the Chernow declaration was admissible.?, please add the following footnote which reads as follows:

   Absent a statement of decision, we must infer all factual findings necessary to support the judgment.  (Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 58.)  But if the record clearly discloses the reasons for the trial court?s ruling, we will not presume that the court relied on a different reason.  (Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2007) 142 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1550; Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1384.)  The order here makes it clear that the reason for the ruling was the court?s conclusion that the limited relationship between Judge Chernow and Mangels and the fact of the listing on the resume created no appearance of impropriety, and not that Judge Chernow was unaware of the listing on his resume at the time of the required disclosures.  We therefore will not infer such a finding.

     The petition for rehearing is denied.

     [There is no change in the judgment.]