A plaintiff's long-standing dissatisfaction with an arbitration process has led to a court case dismissal, reaffirming the protective shield of arbitral immunity. Ryan Harper filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on July 8, 2022, against JAMS, Inc. and arbitrator Stephen E. Haberfeld, which was ultimately dismissed by Judge Upinder S. Kalra.
Harper's journey began in May 2015 when he was compelled by the trial court to arbitrate a dispute stemming from his investment in a limited liability company (LLC). The arbitration clause within the operating agreement mandated this course of action. By September 2015, retired judicial officer Stephen E. Haberfeld was appointed as the arbitrator. Over time, Harper amended his complaint to include additional defendants who were subsequently added to the ongoing arbitration.
The arbitration faced multiple delays, including a year-long stay due to Harper's inability to pay arbitration fees. Once these fees were settled, proceedings resumed and culminated in November 2018 with Haberfeld issuing an order that deemed Harper’s claims time-barred. Despite Harper’s efforts for reconsideration and motions to terminate the arbitration in his favor, all were denied by February 2019.
Undeterred, Harper amended his claims once more in January 2019 but continued facing setbacks. A four-day hearing on these amended claims took place in July 2019 against Harper’s objections. By October 23, 2019, the trial court rejected Harper’s motions requesting that opposing parties cover his share of arbitration fees.
Haberfeld issued an interim award on November 5, 2019, and later a final award on March 13, 2020, both unfavorable to Harper. This prompted Harper to file a motion on September 15, 2020, seeking to vacate the award based on several allegations: improper designation of JAMS as the arbitration provider contrary to their agreement; fraud; bias; procedural unfairness; and exceeding contractual duties by Haberfeld—all of which were denied by the court.
In response to these setbacks, Harper filed a comprehensive complaint asserting ten causes of action ranging from fraud and negligence to violations under various California consumer protection laws and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, defendants argued that all claims were barred under arbitral immunity—a doctrine protecting arbitrators and their sponsoring organizations from civil liability for actions taken within their quasi-judicial roles.
The trial court agreed with this defense and sustained the demurrer without leave for amendment—leading Harper to appeal this decision pro se (representing himself). On appeal, it was determined that Harper failed to provide substantial arguments or citations supporting his claim that arbitral immunity should not apply due to alleged commercial misconduct by JAMS and Haberfeld preceding their decision-making process.
Ultimately, appellate judges Zukin, Collins (Acting Presiding Justice), and Mori concurred in affirming the lower court's judgment—highlighting that arbitral immunity indeed extends beyond mere decision-making processes into preparatory conduct integral to arbitration itself.
Attorneys involved included Jessica R. MacGregor from Long & Levit representing JAMS Inc., while Ryan Harper represented himself throughout these proceedings. The case was identified under Case ID B326854.