Opinion
NO. C01-2182 SI
October 14, 2003
PAMELAY Y. PRICE, ESQ., PRICE AND ASSOCIATES, Oakland, CA, for Petitioners JACKIE R. WINN, EDDIE BROWN, BOBBY R. WINN, MAUDE WASHINGTON, VERA BELL
JUDGEMENT
On January 2, 2002, this Court stayed this action and granted the Defendant EL MONTE RV's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On September 29, 2003, the Arbitrator assigned by the American Arbitration Association entered his Findings and Award in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant EL MONTE RV. (A copy of said Award is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Pursuant to the Court's Order of January 2, 2002, and Paragraph 18(d) of the RV Rental Agreement dated June 5, 2000, Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs in accordance on he Arbitrator's Findings and Award.
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL FINDINGS AND AWARD OF ARBITRATOR
I. THE UNDESIGNED ARBITRATOR, having been designated in accordance with the arbitration agreement entered into by the parties and dated June 5, 2000, and having been duly sworn and having duly heard the proofs and allegations of the parties, hereby FIND as follows:
1. Respondent was aware, both prior to and at the time of vehicle pick-up on June 5, 2000 that both Jackie and Bobbie Winn ("the Winns") were unusually large. The Winns relied on Respondent to provide a vehicle that would accommodate them. Respondent implicitly warranted that the vehicle it provided would do so.
2. Claimants were not, however, entitled to a specific vehicle or model year, Respondent breached neither the express nor the implied terms of its agreement with Claimants by providing a 1999 Bounder to Claimants on June 5, 2000, as the 1999 Bounder was not significantly different from the 2000 Bounder Claimants requested.
3. The most tragic aspect of this entire story, of course, is that Claimants' relative died before they were able to reach their destination and visit with her. But Respondent is not responsible for the emotional injury suffered by Claimants because of this terrible misfortune.
4. Indeed, Respondent's initial response to Claimants' June 6, 2000 distress calls from near Gallup, New Mexico, reflected a good faith effort by Respondent to accommodate Claimants' needs. This response included provision of the 1998 Flair, As a "Class A" vehicle, the Flair complied with the express terms of the Agreement between the Parties — provided, of course, that the Flair was in good working order. Respondent also remained responsible, however, for meeting Claimants' particular needs.
5. Beginning on June 8, 2000, Respondent's treatment of Claimants abruptly deteriorated, apparently because Respondent's Roadside Assistance Manager believed that Claimants had been dishonest regarding damage sustained by the 1999 Bounder. As the character of the communications between Claimants and Respondent rapidly deteriorated, the frustration of Respondent's Roadside Assistance Manager resulted in a quasi-punitive posture toward Claimants. Thereafter, Respondent's treatment of Claimants fell short of Respondent's obligation to deal with Claimants fairly and in good faith.
6. The Winns' inability to access the restroom made the 1998 Flair unfit for the particular purpose of use by the Winns. Respondent was obliged, at least, to use its best efforts to provide a replacement vehicle in which the Winns could access the restroom. Other problems including uncertainty about repair of the Flair's air conditioning system compounded the Winns' justifiable dissatisfaction.
7. Claimants have not proven, however, that they were treated in a discriminatory manner because of their race. Nor have Claimants shown fraud or other conduct by Respondent that would warrant imposition of punitive damages. Claimants have also failed to demonstrate that Respondent's system of reserving vehicles only by "class" or "category" constitutes a deceptive business practice.
8. Nonetheless, Claimants have prevailed on the most basic of their assertions; that Respondent breached the Agreement between the Parties. It is unfortunate that vindication of Claimants' rights required formal dispute resolution proceedings. As the prevailing party in this dispute, Claimants are entitled, under the Agreement between the Parties, to recover from Respondent their "costs and expenses including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees . . .". Claimants and their counsel are not entitled, however, to recover the fees, costs and expenses incurred in initially pursuing a court action that was expressly prohibited by the Agreement between the parties.
Accordingly, I AWARD as follows:
1. Respondent shall pay directly to Claimants the sum of Five Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars and Ninety-Nine Cents (55,967.99) for their claim.
2. Respondent shall pay directly to Claimants the additional sum of Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($17.900,00) representing recoverable costs and expenses previously paid by Claimants.
3. Respondent shall pay directly to Claimants' counsel the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($100,000,00), representing the amount of attorney's fees, costs and expenses that I have determined to be reasonable, minus the amount previously paid to counsel by Claimants.
4. Respondent shall pay post-Award interest on the above sums at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this Award until such sums are paid in full.
5. The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") and the compensation of the arbitrator totaling $16,653,28 shall be borne by Respondent, Therefore, Respondent shall pay to Claimants the additional sum of Seven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($7,200,00) for that portion of the fees and expenses previously advanced by Claimants to the Association. Respondent shall pay to the Association the sum of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Three Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($1,253.28) for administrative fees still due the Association.
This AWARD is intended to resolve the entire dispute arising out of the transaction related to the June 5, 2000 Agreement between the Parties. All of Claimants' claims that are not granted herein are, hereby, denied.