Nice article about a court doing the right thing in the circumstances.

Since the California provision relied upon by the majority is materially identical to Section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act, and provisions in other state arbitration acts, the case provides a nice, clear-cut example of one of the circumtanses under which state and federal courts should vacate arbitration awards. As you point out, the defendant was denied the benefit of its bargain, implicit in which was a fundamentally fair hearing.

I also agree that it is good for arbitration. Any court decision that upholds a freely-bargained-for arbitration agreement -- even if doing so means vacating an arbitration award resulting from it -- is good for arbitration. Were the California Supreme Court to reverse the decision, it would be effectively be granting arbitrators carte blanche to make whatever rulings it pleased, irrespective of whether those rulings were in accord with the parties' agreement to arbitrate.

Phil