Goldberg

Goldberg v. Focus Affiliates Inc.

Good Law
84 F. App'x 936
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 23, 2003Nos. 02-56399, 02-56405, 02-57199; D.C. Nos. CV-02-03712-MMM, CV-02-03694-MMMCalifornia281 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Critical Capital Growth Fund, L.P. (“Critical Capital”) appeals the District Court’s decision affirming an arbitrator’s award of attorneys’ fees against it in its dispute with Cellular Wholesalers, Inc. (“CWI”) as a result of a 1999 merger agreement. Ronald Goldman et. al. (“CWI shareholders”) cross-appeal the District Court’s denial of their petition for attorneys’ fees arising from post-arbitration judicial proceedings to enforce the arbitration decision. We affirm both decisions below.

The arbitrator’s award may be vacated or modified if the arbitrator has exceeded his powers or manifestly disregarded the law. 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(4); Mich. Mwt. Ins. Co. v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 826 , 832 (9th Cir.1995). The arbitrator did neither. Critical Capital submitted to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction by voluntarily participating in the arbitration proceedings. See Nghiem v. NEC Elec., Inc., 25 F.3d 1437 , 1440 (9th Cir.1994). The arbitrator’s decision that Critical Capital is responsible for attorneys’ fees is supported by his findings that Critical Capital was the moving party in the litigation, that it was the party to benefit from the judgment, and that it would…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.