DeCarolis v. Grecco CA2/8 filed 6/30/26

Filed 6/30/26DeCarolis v. Grecco CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

PATRICK DECAROLIS JR et al.,

Petitioners and Respondents,

v.

MICHAEL GRECCO,

Respondent and Appellant.

B339556

Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 23SMCP00262

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Young, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael Grecco, in propria persona; GELB Law and Yisrael Gelb for Respondent and Appellant.
Hinshaw & Culbertson, David T. Hayek, Jennifer K. Saunders, and Sara Franks for Petitioners and Respondents.
____________________
Michael Grecco hired attorney Patrick DeCarolis and his law firm in connection with Grecco’s post-divorce proceedings. Unhappy with DeCarolis’s representation, Grecco brought a claim in arbitration. The arbitrator ruled in DeCarolis’s favor. DeCarolis petitioned to confirm the arbitral award, but Grecco sought to vacate the award based on arbitrator misconduct. The trial court confirmed the award. We affirm. Statutory citations are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
A stipulated judgment resolved divorce proceedings between Grecco and his wife Tony Berlin in 2013. It gave Berlin a first option to purchase one of the couple’s properties under certain circumstances. It likewise gave Grecco a right to purchase if Berlin failed to do so. In January 2020, the parties entered into a court-approved post-judgment stipulation that modified the portion of the judgment concerning Berlin’s first option right. The parties disagreed about what the stipulation required.
Grecco hired DeCarolis and DeCarolis Family Law Group to take over his representation. We refer to both as DeCarolis.
Grecco told DeCarolis his priority was to be able to exercise his option and purchase the property. Grecco and DeCarolis agreed any disputes between the two would go to arbitration.
During the time Grecco changed counsel, Berlin sought an ex parte extension of her deadline to exercise her option, due to Grecco’s lack of cooperation. Although DeCarolis was in the courthouse the morning of the hearing, he was not in the courtroom at the time the court called the matter. The court took the matter under submission without argument and ruled in Berlin’s favor.
After additional proceedings, Berlin ultimately purchased the property. Grecco brought a claim in arbitration against DeCarolis for professional negligence. DeCarolis counterclaimed for breach of contract and account stated for services rendered.
Retired judge Elizabeth R. Feffer was the arbitrator. Counsel represented both sides. After the proceedings, the arbitrator issued an interim award in favor of DeCarolis. DeCarolis then filed a motion regarding attorney fees and costs. The arbitrator granted this motion.
DeCarolis petitioned to confirm the arbitration award. Grecco opposed the petition and asked the court to vacate the award based on misconduct by the arbitrator. Grecco’s declaration stated,“During the arbitration hearing there were multiple occasions when the participants went ‘off the record’ to take short breaks. At least twice during those breaks, on two different days, I personally observed and heard Arbitrator Feffer look at and speak directly to Patrick DeCarolis, reminding him that she was an experienced family law judge and that she was available for family law mediations at any time.”
The arbitrator filed her own declaration with the court in which she stated, “Mr. Grecco’s allegations against me are completely and totally false, and are as patently absurd as they are fabricated.” Patrick DeCarolis filed a declaration in which he disputed Grecco’s allegations in strong terms. DeCarolis’s arbitration counsel also filed a declaration stating he heard no such comments. An insurance monitor present at the arbitration also declared he heard no such thing.
Judge Mark Young granted DeCarolis’s petition to affirm and denied Grecco’s request to vacate the award. In his ruling, he found that, “as a matter of fact, the arbitrator did not make those solicitations. Grecco provides an entirely self-serving allegation that he heard the Arbitrator twice solicit opposing counsel during breaks in the Arbitration. Aside from this conclusory statement, [which] contain[s] no details, Grecco provides no corroborating evidence.” Judge Young further noted that a family law judge “found that Grecco lacked credibility and engaged in ‘suspect’ litigation behavior,” leading to sanctions.
Grecco appeals Judge Young’s order confirming the arbitration award.
Grecco attacks the order on a number of grounds. He has forfeited all but the sole ground he raised before the trial court. Because Grecco did not establish a valid ground for vacating an arbitration award existed, we affirm.
We independently review a trial court’s ruling on a petition to affirm or vacate an arbitration award. (Valencia v. Mendoza (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 427, 442 (Valencia).) We defer to any factual finding the trial court made if there is substantial evidence to support it. (Ibid.)
An arbitration award can only be challenged on certain grounds. (Malek Media Grp., LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 827.) Mere errors in law or fact are generally insufficient. (Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) 7 Cal.5th 350, 367 (Heimlich).) Instead, the challenger must establish a statutory ground for vacating or correcting an award. (Haworth v. Superior Ct. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 387.) Sections 1286.2 and 1286.6 enumerate these grounds.
Grecco invoked two grounds: (1) “there was corruption in … the arbitrator” and (2) “the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.” (§ 1286.2, subds. (a)(2) & (a)(3).) Both grounds concerned the arbitrator’s alleged solicitation of work from DeCarolis.
We defer to the trial court’s findings of fact where substantial evidence supports them. (Valencia, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th at p. 442.) Grecco submitted a declaration in which he stated he heard the arbitrator solicit DeCarolis for work during the arbitration. He gave no details about these conversations. His attorney offered no declaration. Grecco did not say he spoke to his counsel, or anyone else, about what he claimed he heard. The first time Grecco aired this allegation was in opposition to DeCarolis’s petition to affirm the award.
Against Grecco’s lone and uncorroborated allegation stood the testimony of four contrary witnesses: the arbitrator, DeCarolis, DeCarolis’ counsel, and an insurancemonitor. Grecco’s conduct caused a judge to question his credibility.
We defer to this substantial evidence.
There is no basis to vacate the award. Grecco forfeited arguments he did not offer to the trial court. These forfeited claims include Grecco’s attempts to offer additional evidence of arbitrator bias.
Grecco challenges the arbitrator’s application of law and finding of facts. Neither can generally be challenged, as Grecco concedes. (Heimlich, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 367.) Grecco cites cases in which the Supreme Court found an arbitration award could be reviewed on legal grounds, but this was true where the arbitration agreement, unlike this one, explicitly provided for such review. (See, e.g., Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1339–1340, 1361.)
Grecco now charges the arbitrator exceeded her jurisdiction. He asserts that the arbitration agreement did not allow for this scope of arbitration but identifies no limiting language in the agreement. In an attempt to avoid forfeiture, he cites Loving & Evans v. Blick (1949) 33 Cal.2d 603 (Loving) for the proposition that issues of jurisdiction may be raised after arbitration in the trial court. In affirming this point from Loving, however, the Supreme Court also affirmed that such arguments can be forfeited if not timely made. (Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2024) 14 Cal.5th 932, 958–959 [“Just as an appellant may forfeit the opportunity to vindicate her statutory rights by failing to preserve an issue in the trial court or by failing to file a timely notice of appeal, so too, in a postarbitration judicial proceeding to enforce an arbitral award, a challenger may forfeit the opportunity to raise a claim of contract illegality by failing to timely request that the arbitration award be corrected or vacated”].)
Grecco failed to raise this point in arbitration as well as before the trial court. Moreover, Grecco cannot submit his cause to arbitration and only after losing assert that the arbitration was improper. (Kemper v. Schardt (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 557, 561 [after losing in arbitration “is too late for appellant to now complain that the arbitrator was without jurisdiction to determine the issue”].)
We deny Grecco’s motions for judicial notice as moot.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order and award costs to DeCarolis.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
STRATTON, P. J.VIRAMONTES, J.