## Facts

- Gary A. Schlessinger, an attorney, was a partner at Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman (RM&S) from 1966 until his resignation in 1993.
- The partners entered a written partnership agreement in 1975 that governed compensation upon a partner’s departure.
- The agreement provided a departing partner would be paid for capital and an “agreed sum” reflecting anticipated revenues from work in progress and receivables.
- The agreement reduced the “agreed sum” under a formula if the departing partner competed with the firm.
- After leaving, Schlessinger competed with RM&S; RM&S applied the reduction formula, and Schlessinger claimed the reductions were unlawful restraints on competition.
- RM&S demanded arbitration under an arbitration clause; Schlessinger filed a counter-demand, and the dispute proceeded under AAA rules before a retired appellate justice.
- The arbitrator invited (but did not require) the parties to file initial summary-judgment-type motions and resolved principal issues by granting RM&S two motions for summary adjudication, entering an award for RM&S.

## Issues

1. Whether the California Arbitration Act (CAA) prohibits an arbitrator from considering and granting motions for summary adjudication in arbitration.
2. Whether resolving major issues by summary adjudication, without live testimony and cross-examination, constitutes an arbitrator’s “refus[al] to hear evidence material to the controversy” warranting vacatur under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2(a)(5).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Schlessinger’s petition to vacate the arbitration award.
- The court held the CAA does not preclude arbitrators from employing summary adjudication procedures.
- The court held the arbitrator did not “refuse to hear” material evidence merely by deciding issues on written submissions when no triable dispute of material fact existed.
- The arbitration award in favor of RM&S remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- The CAA grants arbitrators broad discretion to control arbitration procedure; absent statutory restriction, arbitrators may adopt efficient methods consistent with the parties’ agreement and applicable arbitration rules.
- The CAA’s references to an arbitration “hearing” do not require a full evidentiary hearing with oral testimony and cross-examination in every case.
- Vacatur for “refus[al] to hear evidence material to the controversy” requires an unjustified exclusion of material proof that could affect the outcome; it is not established when an arbitrator concludes additional evidence is unnecessary because there is no genuine factual dispute on a dispositive issue.
- Judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to the CAA’s specified grounds; courts do not overturn awards based on disagreement with the arbitrator’s procedural choices when statutory fairness requirements are met.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an arbitration award entered after the arbitrator granted summary adjudication motions, holding that the CAA permits such procedures and that deciding issues on written submissions, without live testimony, does not by itself show a refusal to hear material evidence justifying vacatur.


Schlessinger v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, 40 Cal. App. 4th 1096, 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 650 (Ct. App. 1995)