Modification: Goodwin v. Comerica Bank, N.A.

MARK GOODWIN,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

COMERICA BANK, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent.-

A160909

(Alameda County

Super. Ct. No. RG17855144)

California Courts of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division Four

Filed January 5, 2022

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING;

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 15, 2021, be modified as follows:

On page 16, line 6, after the words "Goodwin's petition to confirm the award," add as footnote 10 the following footnote,

¹⁰ To the extent Comerica suggests that the arbitrator's misleading description of the Hernandez resolution was an affirmative misrepresentation independently bringing his impartiality into question and requiring his disqualification, the same analysis applies. Comerica learned the correct facts prior to submitting its opposition to Goodwin's fee motion and failed to raise the issue until after the arbitrator ruled on the motion, thereby forfeiting the issue.

There is no change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Dated: January 5, 2022 P. J.

Trial Court:

Alameda County Superior Court

Trial Judge:

Honorable Julia Spain

Counsel for Plaintiff and Appellant:

EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER,

A CLINIC OF BERKELY LAW SCHOOL

Kara Acevedo

Miguel Soto, Jr.

WILCOX LAW FIRM, P.C.

Ronald Wilcox

Allison Krumhorn

DUPRE LAW FIRM, P.C.

Ben E. Dupre

Counsel for Defendant and Respondent:

BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation

Peter G. Bertrand

Harry W.R. Chamberlain II

Cheryl M. Lott

NUKK-FREEMAN & CERA, L.P.

Stacy L. Fode

Sabrina E. Lim