LA SERENA PROPERTIES v. WEISBACH
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>LA SERENA PROPERTIES v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b<br /> >LA SERENA<br /> PROPERTIES v. WEISBACH</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/15/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FIRST<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> FOUR<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>LA SERENA<br /> PROPERTIES et al.,<br /> <br/> Plaintiffs and Appellants,<br /> <br/>v.<br /> <br/>GERALD WEISBACH<br /> et al.,<br /> <br/> Defendants and Respondents.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> A126283<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (San<br /> Francisco City<br /> & County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct. No. 484081)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >I.</b><br /> <br/><b >Introduction</b><br /> <br/> Plaintiffs<br /> La Serena Properties, LLC, Casa Margaritaville, Inc., and Steven Yates<br /> (appellants) appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained the<br /> demurrers of defendants Gerald Weisbach (Weisbach) and the American Arbitration<br /> Association (AAA) (respondents) without leave to amend. Appellants sued respondents for damages, as<br /> well as other relief<b >,</b> alleging five<br /> separate causes of action, all of which arise out of the alleged failure of<br /> arbitrator Weisbach to disclose a certain conflict of interest during the appointment process. <br /> <br/> We<br /> agree with the trial court that the alleged claims of misconduct, no matter how pleaded, all<br /> arise out of the conflict of interest disclosure procedure that is integrally<br /> part of the arbitration process. Thus,<br /> respondents are protected from liability by the common law arbitral immunity<br /> for quasi-judicial acts. Accordingly, we<br /> affirm the judgment.<br /> <br/><b >II.</b><br /> <br/><b >Factual and Procedural Backgrounds</b><br /> <br/> When<br /> considering an appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained a<br /> demurrer without leave to amend, we â€