Case Number: BS130048    Hearing Date: September 15, 2014    Dept: 34

Moving Party: Respondent Suzan Hughes (“respondent”)

Resp. Party: Petitioner Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP (“petitioner”)

Respondent Hughes’ Motion to Vacate is DENIED; this Court was divested of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion when Hughes filed her appeal on July 18, 2014.

BACKGROUND:

Petitioner commenced this action on 1/27/11 by filing a petition to compel arbitration of a dispute between the parties. Petitioner represented respondent for nearly eight years in connection with probate court proceedings, and a dispute arose regarding respondent’s alleged failure to pay over $1 million in outstanding legal fees and costs. (See Pet., ¶¶ 4-5.) The client engagement agreement included an arbitration provision requiring the parties to arbitrate disputes as to fees and costs. (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. 1.)

On 5/10/11, the Court, the Hon. Charles F. Palmer presiding, granted petitioner’s petition to compel arbitration. On 5/24/11, the parties submitted a stipulation that Hon. John Zebrowski of ADR Services would be appointed as arbitrator.

The arbitrator issued a final arbitration award on 3/3/14. The arbitrator found that respondent was personally liable for reasonable fees of petitioner that were not paid out of guardianship estate funds. (See Def. Exh. 7, p. 5.) The arbitrator found that the fees requested were reasonable. (Id., p. 6.) The arbitrator awarded to petitioner and against respondent the sum of $1,316,375.31, plus pre-judgment interest of $985,774.81. (Id., p. 7.)

On 4/21/14, petitioner filed the instant motion to confirm the arbitration award.

On 4/9/14, respondent commenced a separate action, BS148094, by filing a petition to vacate the arbitration award. Respondent filed a notice of related cases on 5/1/14.

On 5/14/14, the Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm the arbitration award. Judgment was entered on 5/21/14.

On 7/18/14, respondent filed a notice of appeal of the 5/21/14 judgment.

ANALYSIS:

Respondent requests an order setting aside and vacating the 5/14/14 order confirming the arbitration award and the 5/21/14 judgment. The Court does not have jurisdiction to consider this motion because respondent has filed a notice of appeal of the judgment. Code of Civil Procedure section 916 states:

Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.

(CCP § 916(a) [sections 917.1, 917.9, and 116.810 pertain to enforcement of a judgment].) ” ‘As a general rule, a duly perfected appeal divests the trial court of further jurisdiction in the cause except with respect to collateral matters [such as a motion for new trial].’ [Citation]” (Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. Bay Cities Services, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 630, 641.) As stated in Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931:

The purpose of the rule depriving the trial court of jurisdiction in a case during a pending appeal is to protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. The rule prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it.

(Id. at p. 938.) “[D]uring pendency of an appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction to do anything in connection with the cause that may affect the judgment, but retains certain powers over the parties and incidental aspects of the cause, such as procedural steps in connection with preparation and correction of the record.” (People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1257. See also Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 629 [“trial court proceedings in contravention of the section 916 stay are in excess of the court’s jurisdiction, including motions under section 473 to vacate default judgments”].)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES respondent’s motion because it has no jurisdiction to consider it.