## Facts

- A California businessman and his corporation formed an entity to create a joint venture with a German business entity owned by Herbert Rebmann.
- Under the operating agreement for the joint venture LLC, the Rohde side held a 25% interest and the Rebmann side held a 75% interest; the LLC distributed nutritional supplements in North America.
- Business disputes arose, and the Rohde side initiated arbitration under the operating agreement, alleging intentional or reckless misrepresentations that induced entry into the venture and seeking substantial damages.
- The arbitration was administered by JAMS, which selected a retired judge as arbitrator; the arbitrator executed standard disclosures stating he had made reasonable efforts to identify matters bearing on impartiality.
- The arbitrator ruled largely for the Rebmann side, awarding nominal damages and substantial attorney fees and costs.
- After losing, the Rohde side conducted internet research and asserted the arbitrator (and/or his parents) had Jewish and Holocaust-related family history and affiliations that were not disclosed.
- The Rohde side asserted the arbitrator would have been unacceptable had they known this background, citing their own family’s World War II German military/SS connections.
- The arbitrator stated he was neutral, the dispute was unrelated to religion or the Holocaust, and he had no knowledge of any party’s or family member’s wartime history.
- In superior court, the Rebmann side petitioned to confirm the award; the Rohde side counterpetitioned to vacate, sought to depose the arbitrator, and requested a statement of decision.
- The trial court confirmed the award and denied vacatur; the Rohde side appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a commercial arbitration award must be vacated because the arbitrator did not disclose religious affiliation, ancestry, and Holocaust-related family history/associations where the dispute had no connection to those matters and there was no evidence of actual bias.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to permit the losing party to depose the arbitrator to investigate alleged nondisclosure and bias.
3. Whether the trial court was required to issue a statement of decision in proceedings to confirm or vacate an arbitration award.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment confirming the arbitration award.
- The court held the alleged nondisclosures about religion and family background were not a basis for vacatur under California arbitrator-disclosure standards in this case.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the request to depose the arbitrator.
- The court held a statement of decision was not required for the petition to confirm/vacate, and the absence of one was not reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- An arbitration award may be vacated for arbitrator nondisclosure only when the undisclosed facts would cause a reasonable person to doubt the arbitrator’s ability to be impartial under the governing statutory and ethics standards.
- Personal biographical facts (including religion, ancestry, or family history) are not necessarily disclosable when they have no objective connection to the parties, counsel, witnesses, or subject matter of the dispute and do not reasonably suggest partiality.
- Speculation that an arbitrator’s background might create bias against a party is insufficient without evidence supporting actual bias or an objectively reasonable appearance of bias.
- Post-award discovery targeting an arbitrator, including deposition requests, is disfavored and generally requires a concrete, prima facie showing of misconduct or bias.
- Proceedings to confirm or vacate an arbitration award are typically resolved as motion-type matters; a statement of decision is not automatically required.

## Conclusion

The court upheld confirmation of a commercial arbitration award, concluding that nondisclosure of the arbitrator’s religious and familial Holocaust-related background—without any nexus to the dispute or evidence of bias—did not justify vacatur, and that neither an arbitrator deposition nor a statement of decision was required.


Rebmann v. Rohde, 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 510 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)