Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties

Background

An earlier opinion and order interpreted the parties’ arbitration agreement and stayed the federal case while arbitration proceeded before JAMS in California. Jules later asked the court to lift the stay and impose sanctions based on the defendants’ alleged breach of the agreement. The arbitrator then rejected Jules’s breach claim and his attempt to withdraw from arbitration. Jules also sought a preliminary injunction and judgment in his favor.

On October 12, 2022, the court denied those requests. It held that the arbitrator had authority to decide the alleged breach and that the arbitrator’s decision provided a basis to deny Jules’s motions.

Motion for Reconsideration

Jules moved for reconsideration of the October 12 order. Reconsideration is a request to revisit an earlier ruling. The court explained that this relief is generally available only for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice.

Jules relied on Espinoza v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, a California Court of Appeals decision. The court held that decision was not controlling law and was distinguishable because Espinoza involved an undisputed failure to pay an arbitration provider’s invoice within 30 days. Here, the parties disputed whether the defendants timely paid the fees, the arbitrator rejected Jules’s arguments about the payment deadline, and the defendants had paid the arbitration initiation fees. The court therefore concluded that the cited California statute did not provide a basis for reconsideration.

Jules also repeated arguments that the arbitration agreement did not clearly and unmistakably give the arbitrator authority to decide arbitrability or the alleged breach. The court said it had already considered and rejected those arguments. It further said that arguments Jules could have raised earlier, but did not, were not a sufficient basis for reconsideration.

The court additionally rejected the arguments on their merits. It found that the agreement’s text clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of the defendants’ alleged breach to the arbitrator. It also rejected Jules’s argument that JAMS rules allowed him to pursue remedies in court because the defendants had not timely paid fees, because the arbitrator found that all fees were timely paid. Finally, the court rejected Jules’s argument concerning California Civil Procedure Code § 1281.98 because he cited no supporting authority, the agreement broadly reflected an intent to resolve disputes through arbitration despite later developments, and the statute did not apply when the fees were timely paid.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Jules’s motion for reconsideration was DENIED. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket 55. This is a procedural order concerning reconsideration of an earlier ruling, rather than a new decision on the underlying claims.