CACV is attempting to convert hundreds of sham arbitration awards into judgments in California. If that is your case, then read the following recent California ruling finding that NAF is in fact “corrupt.”

CACV OF COLORADO, LLC v. RANDOLPH PCL-20040079

1. Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

2. Respondent’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award.

The parties were engaged in a dispute over a debt allegedly owed on an MBNA credit card account. Petitioner, the assignee of the account, arbitrated the matter pursuant to an alleged arbitration clause contained within the alleged credit card agreement. An award in favor of petitioner in the amount of $20,465.09 was issued. Petitioner seeks to have that award confirmed and entered as a judgment against respondent.

In addition, the court notes that under NAF Rules, the arbitrator discloses to the "Director" circumstances creating a conflict of interest and only if the Director does not disqualify the arbitrator, does the Director inform the parties of the information disclosed. (NAF Code of Procedure, Rule 23B.) While disclosures of conflicts of interest are required, the court notes that there is no specific requirement to list in the arbitrator’s disclosure the prior or pending noncollective bargaining cases in which the arbitrator served within the past five years or is serving as a party arbitrator for any party or for a lawyer for a party. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1281.9(a)(3) and (d).) Under the totality of the circumstances, there appears to be a failure to disclose meriting a finding of "corruption" for the purposes of Section 1286.2. The petition to confirm the award is denied and the petition to vacate the award is granted.

The court does not reach the other issues raised.

TENTATIVE RULING # 17: THE PETITION TO CONFIRM THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS DENIED. THE PETITION TO VACATE THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS GRANTED. NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED (LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247.), UNLESS ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED BY COURT CALL OR PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN DEPARTMENT NINE AT 9:00 A.M. ON THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2004. IF THE COURT GRANTS THE REQUEST FOR A HEARING OF ORAL ARGUMENT, A HEARING DATE AND TIME WILL BE SET DURING THAT PERSONAL OR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE.

CACV Slapped Down in Court

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup