Rinehart v. Batnji















Filed 10/13/10 Rinehart v. Batnji CA4/3















NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS





California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.





IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

CHRISTOPHER RINEHART, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAMAL BATNIJI et al., Defendants and Appellants.

G042771 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00234129) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of Orange
County, Jamoa A. Moberly, Judge. Affirmed.

Anderson & Kriger,
Clayton M. Anderson, Sarita T. Patel, Law Offices of Kimberly A. Knill and
Kimberly A. Knill for Defendants and Appellants.

Law Offices of Douglas
M. Wade and Douglas M. Wade for Plaintiff and Respondent.

*
* *

Kamal and Turkya Batniji
(the Batnijis) appeal the judgment entered after the court granted the motion
of Christopher Rinehart doing business as Rinehart Electric (Rinehart) to
confirm a contractual arbitration award as a judgment and denied the Batnijis'
motion to vacate the arbitration award. We affirm the judgment.



FACTS



The Batnijis â€