Arbitration/Indemnity/Section 1717: Individual Deleted From Arbitration Properly Denied Requested Fees Of $109,000 And Requested Costs Of $10,700

 

No Clear Fee Entitlement In This One.

     Individual who was deleted from an arbitration award, because he was neither served nor consented to an arbitration, was frustrated because the lower court denied him fees under an arbitration agreement provision and AAA Rules in Fujian Peak Group, Inc. v. Huang, Case No. D063296 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 May 15, 2014) (unpublished). He lost an attempt to recoup $109,000 in fees and $10,700 in costs.

     His appeal of the fee denial did not gain anything further.

     The problem was that was no clear fee entitlement basis. The fee clause in the arbitration agreement was not specific enough as to the individual litigant, and the general former AAA Rule-43(a) allowing an arbitrator general power to order “just and equitable relief” should not be construed broadly to encompass fee recovery. As far as an indemnity clause with some fee language, it was not equivalent to a prevailing party fee clause, based upon the reasoning of Baldwin Builders Co. v. Coast Plastering Corp., 125 Cal.App.4^th 1339 (2005)—with anyone wanting more information in this area needing to go to our home page and clicking on the “Indemnity” category on the left hand side. Fee denial affirmed.