How to set aside Arbitral Awards in California

Under California Code of Civil Procedure §§1280-1294.2 (“CPP”), also known as the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”), the relevant terminology is generally that an arbitral award may be “vacated” rather than “set aside.”  A party request a court to vacate an arbitral award under CCP section 1285. Appeals are governed by CCP sections 1294 and 1294.2. Under CCP section 1294, an aggrieved party may appeal certain arbitration-related court orders and judgments, including an order dismissing a petition to confirm, correct, or vacate an award, an order vacating an award unless a rehearing in arbitration is ordered, and a judgment entered after confirmation of an award.  Under California law, parties may agree to expanded judicial review of an arbitration award, including review for legal error, if the arbitration agreement expressly provides for that review.

California Superior Courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction over the dispute, have jurisdiction to hear petitions to vacate, correct, or confirm arbitral awards under the CAA

Pursuant to CAA section 1286.2 a California Court shall vacate an award if it determines that one of the following grounds exist:

• corruption, fraud or other misconduct that substantially prejudiced one of the parties
• bribery, undisclosed conflicts, or manifest bias of the arbitrator
• the rights of a party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator
• refusal of a reasonable and compelling request to postpone the hearing or refusal to consider relevant evidence that could have affected the outcome
• the arbitrator exceeded his/her authority or scope of the engagement
• a neutral arbitrator failed to disclose a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was aware, or was subject to disqualification and failed to disqualify himself/herself after a timely demand

California also provides for another judicially created ground in some cases where the award extremely violates “public policy.”

California courts give substantial deference to the arbitration process and tend to favor its results.  Generally, the court does not consider the merits of the case but only the alleged grounds for vacating the award.

The petition to vacate must be filed within 100 days from the service of the award.

California courts consider the 100-day deadline strictly, although the California Supreme Court has held that it is not jurisdictional and may be subject to equitable tolling or equitable estoppel in exceptional circumstances.

Suspension of the enforcement is not automatic. The party seeking to challenge the award can request a stay or continuance of the enforcement proceedings while the petition is pending.

The CAA does not expressly state whether parties may waive or limit all statutory grounds for vacating an award in advance. Parties may agree that an arbitration award will be final and binding, and such language generally confirms that there will be no ordinary merits appeal. However, the limited statutory grounds for vacatur would generally still be available.

The application is generally made by filing a petition in the proper California superior court. The petition should identify the statutory ground or grounds for vacatur, name the required respondents, and be supported by admissible evidence.

The application must be supported by affidavits under oath demonstrating convincingly the grounds for vacating the award. The other side(s) then have an opportunity to file opposing papers and the moving party has the last opportunity to file a reply to that opposition.

The court usually decides the matter based on the petition, response, reply, declarations, exhibits, and the arbitration record. Live testimony is possible but uncommon.

If the motion is denied, the award can be confirmed and has the force of a judgement.  if the award is vacated, the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators. If the award is vacated because the arbitrators exceeded their powers, refused to postpone the hearing despite sufficient cause, refused to hear material evidence, or otherwise conducted the hearing contrary to the CAA, the court may, with the parties’ consent, order a rehearing before the original arbitrators.

The court may also correct the award rather than vacate it if the statutory requirements for correction are satisfied.

Attorney’s fees are not automatically available in a set-aside proceeding. A frivolous or bad-faith petition may also expose a party to sanctions. However, that is different from ordinary prevailing-party attorney’s fees and requires a separate sanctions basis.

California case law strongly favors the finality of arbitral awards:

Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (1992), is the leading California Supreme Court decision on judicial review of arbitral awards, holding that, an arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, even if such errors appear on the face of the award and cause substantial injustice to the parties involved. The court acknowledged limited exceptions to this rule, including situations where the entire contract or the arbitration agreement itself is illegal. The court found no grounds for vacating the arbitration award in Moncharsh's case based on these exceptions

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 9 Cal.4th 362 (1994). addressed pivotal issues concerning the scope of judicial review over arbitration awards, particularly focusing on whether arbitrators have exceeded their powers in fashioning remedies for breach of contract.

FCM Investments, LLC v. Grove Pham, LLC, 96 Cal.App.5th 545 (2023). The arbitration award was vacated due to misconduct by the arbitrator, who disbelieved the testimony of the defendant's primary witness because she had requested an interpreter, despite having conducted sophisticated business dealings in the US for many years. The arbitrator’s credibility finding was based on unacceptable misconceptions about English proficiency and language acquisition, which created a reasonable impression of possible bias sufficient to vacate the award.

NNN Capital Fund I, LLC v. Mikles, 119 Cal.App.5th 1200 (2026). The California Court of Appeal vacated a judgment confirming an arbitral award on the ground that the legal standing of the parties remained an unresolved factual question, one the Court held was a jurisdictional question that could be raised for the first time on appeal notwithstanding California’s strong policy limiting judicial review of arbitration awards. As the dissent noted, the majority’s holding creates a loophole through which just about any arbitral award could be successfully challenged.

Practical observation: Vacatur applications in California are difficult to win. California courts repeatedly emphasize that arbitration is intended to be final, efficient, and subject to only limited judicial review.

Accordingly, the practical likelihood of success is low unless the moving party can identify a concrete statutory ground under CCP section 1286.2 and support it with a strong evidentiary record.

Set-aside applications are generally unlikely to succeed unless the moving party can identify a concrete statutory ground for vacatur and support it with a strong evidentiary record.

As a practical matter, the strongest vacatur applications are those based on defects affecting the integrity or fairness of the arbitration process, not those framed as a disagreement with the arbitrator’s reasoning or outcome. Accordingly, a party should pursue vacatur only where there is enough evidence supporting the grounds to vacate.