Can a reasonable person reasonably doubt the impartiality of an arbitrator?

"We must accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts when supported by substantial evidence; we must presume the court found every fact and drew every permissible inference necessary to support its judgment, and defer to its determination of credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence." (Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 919, 923.) The relevant findings are supported by the declarations of the arbitrator and defense counsel. (See Evid. Code, 411; In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614 [the testimony of a single witness may constitute substantial evidence].) We conclude that a person aware of the facts, i.e., the arbitrator being told defendants' former bookkeeper had attempted suicide, could not reasonably doubt the arbitrator's

Page 14

ability to be impartial based on his receipt of that information. (See Haworth v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 389 ["'The "reasonable person" is not someone who is "hypersensitive or unduly suspicious," but rather is a "well-informed, thoughtful observer."' [Citation.] '[T]he partisan litigant emotionally involved in the controversy underlying the lawsuit is not the disinterested objective observer whose doubts concerning the judge's impartiality provide the governing standard.'"].)