Postarbitration Proceedings Distinct From Arbitration Proceedings For Purposes of Fee Award.
Prime Associates Group, LLC v. NAMA Holdings, LLC, Case No. B226167 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 19, 2012) (unpublished) is a case that upheld a substantial attorney’s fees award, drawing a distinction in the process between postarbitration and arbitration proceedings.
NAMA was awarded postconfirmation arbitration fees of $591,818.18, even though it was found not to be a prevailing party in the earlier arbitration proceeding.
Loser was unsuccessful in reversing the fee award. After all, the contractual fees clause was broad and encompassed court awards in a wide variety of proceedings. It did not matter that NAMA did not prevail in the arbitration for fee purposes; the petition to confirm the arbitration award fell within the fees clause and the postarbitration proceeding is a judicial function distinct from the arbitrator’s decision to award fees in the arbitral proceeding. (Corona v. Amherst Partners, 107 Cal.App.4th 701, 707 (2003).) Fee award in favor of NAMA affirmed.
For more on arbitration issues in the case, see June 19, 2012 post on California Mediation and Arbitration.