Mikail

I. INTRODUCTION

The trial court confirmed and entered judgment on an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff Ramin Mikail and against appellant defendants.1 On appeal, defendants challenge the judgment’s award of attorney fees and a postjudgment charging order. We affirm.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Shareholders’ Agreement/Arbitration Clause

In December 2012, Color OnDemand, Inc. entered into a shareholders’ agreement with plaintiff, defendants, and the codefendant. The agreement set forth the parties’ respective ownership of the issued shares of the corporation and included an arbitration clause. Specifically, paragraph 11.8, entitled “Dispute Resolution, Attorney Fees and Costs” (arbitration clause), provided that the parties were required to submit any disputes arising from the agreement to binding contractual arbitration administered by JAMS. The arbitration clause included an attorney fees provision that stated: “The arbitrator may, in the Award, allocate all or part of the costs of the arbitration, including the fees of the arbitrator and the reasonable out-of-pocket attorneys’ fees of the prevailing party.” The clause further provided that its terms could be…