MFAA Deadlines Are Strict, Not Subject To CCP § 473 Relief.
Plaintiff/former client in Rossi, Hamerslough, Reischl & Chuck v. Shah, Case No. H051614 (6th Dist. Apr. 11, 2025) (unpublished) was unhappy that her former counsel sent an outstanding $200,000 receivable notice even though they were instrumental in working up a case resulting in a verdict through replacement counsel and in an award of $395,000 in prevailing party fees against the verdict losing party. She initiated Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act (MFAA) proceedings, even though no lawsuit was pending, aside from initiating JAMS arbitration to adjudicate her malpractice claims (although she later dropped the JAMS demand). The MFAA panel sided with her former counsel, ordering the entire receivable paid.
Plaintiff failed to reject or file a new action within 30 days service of the award, a deadline which is not subject to CCP § 473 relief, in a situation where there was no action pending by former counsel. She also failed to request a vacatur of the award within 100 days of award service, with former counsel waiting for that deadline to pass before moving to confirm the MFAA award.
Plaintiff’s appeal of the results was unsuccessful. The appellate court found that the missed deadlines where critical and dispositive of her challenges for a revisit of the results. The panel also did look at the denial of a new trial request on the merits (because the lower court did entertain it on the merits), but it found no prejudice flowing from its denial. The moral of this case is to follow the MFAA and California Arbitration Act deadlines for getting a second bite from an adverse MFAA award or for challenging an arbitration award if that is the only remedy remaining.
Comments