{"id":113,"date":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=113"},"modified":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","slug":"barbanell-v-lodge-d084193-prevailing-party-arbitrator-appointment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=113","title":{"rendered":"Barbanell v. Lodge \u2014 Petitioner Who Wins a Court Order Appointing a New Arbitrator Is a ‘Prevailing Party’ Entitled to Fees"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Barbanell v. Lodge<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
D084193<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Arbitration, Petition to Appoint Arbitrator, Prevailing Party, Attorney Fees, Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The dispute traces back to a 2005 settlement that resolved a century-old water-rights conflict between two Southern California ranching properties owned by the Barbanell entities and Raymond Lodge (with his Condor’s Nest LLC). The settlement required the parties to resolve future disputes through informal negotiation, mediation, and finally binding arbitration before a retired judge with water-law expertise. The agreement also contained two attorney-fee provisions \u2014 one rewarding the prevailing party in the arbitration itself, and another rewarding the prevailing party who has to bring suit to compel compliance with the arbitration framework.<\/p>\n

A 2016 groundwater dispute went to arbitration. After several years, with the Barbanell entities’ summary-judgment motion pending, Lodge twice sought to disqualify the arbitrator. The arbitrator withdrew, leaving the proceeding stalled. While the Barbanell entities looked for a replacement arbitrator, Lodge filed a parallel superior-court lawsuit asserting the same claims he had been litigating in arbitration. The Barbanell entities responded by filing a separate, discrete petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 to appoint a new arbitrator. The superior court granted the petition.<\/p>\n

The trial court then awarded the Barbanell entities $68,800 in attorney fees as the prevailing party on the petition. Lodge appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court acknowledged the general rule that ‘prevailing party’ status normally requires resolution of the entire dispute. But it held this case fits a recognized exception: a discrete special proceeding, such as a section 1281.6 petition to appoint an arbitrator, can produce its own prevailing party even if other related claims remain pending elsewhere.<\/p>\n

The Barbanell entities won the discrete relief they sought \u2014 a court-appointed arbitrator who could resume the case. That outcome closed out the section 1281.6 proceeding entirely. The settlement agreement’s broad fee provision, which expressly covered any ‘lawsuit . . . arising out of or relating to the matters covered by [the] Agreement,’ reached this special proceeding. The trial court therefore correctly designated the Barbanell entities as the prevailing party and awarded their fees.<\/p>\n

The court also addressed (and excused) a technical defect in Lodge’s notice of appeal, exercising its discretion to construe the notice liberally so as to reach the postjudgment fee order on the merits.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n