Ovitz v. Schulman
In these appeals, consolidated for the purposes of oral argument and decision, the parties appeal from two orders awarding attorney fees. In the first appeal (Case No. B192251), plaintiffs Michael S. Ovitz and six business entities (collectively, the APG parties) challenge the trial courts order awarding defendant Catherine E. Schulman $151,298.88 in attorney fees and costs incurred in her successful defense against the APG parties prior appeal from an order vacating an arbitration award. In that prior appeal (Case No. B179978), we affirmed in a published opinion the trial courts order vacating the arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator failed to comply with California disclosure obligations for arbitrators. (See Ovitz v. Schulman (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 830 (Ovitz I).) In the second appeal at issue here (Case No. B194311), Schulman appeals from an order awarding the APG parties $75,569.04 in attorney fees incurred in successfully defending against Schulmans motion to stay or dismiss the arbitration (Schulmans motion was filed after the APG parties sought to renew the arbitration before a different arbitrator following our decision in Ovitz I). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the order awarding Schulman her attorney fees and costs incurred in Ovitz I and reverse the order awarding the APG parties their attorney fees incurred in opposing Schulmans motion to stay or dismiss.
Comments on Ovitz v. Schulman