Appointment of the Arbitrator Was a Final Judgment Here.

The procedural facts in Barbanell v. Lodge, D084193 (4th Dist. Div. 1 pub. 1/8/26) are unusual. The parties had reached an earlier settlement agreement concerning a long-running water rights dispute. The agreement had a heirarchical settlement procedure — negotiate, mediate, then arbitrate.

Barbanell initiated an arbitration. Lodge moved successfully to have the arbitrator withdraw, leaving the arbitration unresolved. Lodge also filed a lawsuit asserting arbitration claims in the lawsuit.

Barbanell then separately petitioned the court to appoint a new arbitrator in the existing arbitration. Barbanell prevailed, and was awarded attorney fees.

In the appeal, Lodge argued “the Barbanell entities could not have been prevailing parties in the underlying action because the parties had claims pending in a separate lawsuit in the superior court and in arbitration at the time of the award.” In effect, this was an argument that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to award attorneys fees until the claims were finally adjudicated.

Lodge was arguing that the Superior Court retained twilight jurisdiction, because a Superior Court action was pending and the matter was also being arbitrated; therefore, attorney fees could not be decided until the matter was complete and the court could decide who was the prevailing party on a contract claim.

Not so on the facts. The petition to appoint a new arbitrator was required as party of the settlement agreement, was a limited “action on the contract”, was fully adjudicated, resulted in a final judgment, and therefore allowed for attorney fees.

COMMENT: “Twilight jurisdiction” is a California-specific doctrine of limited judicial authority over litigation that has been sent to arbitration. The phrase traces to Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 10 Cal.App.4th 1790 (1992), where the court described what happens to a civil action once the parties are compelled to arbitrate: “the action at law sits in the twilight zone of abatement with the trial court retaining merely vestigial jurisdiction over matters submitted to arbitration.” The phrase was then adopted and applied by Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.App.4th 482 (1994).