NW2d 150 (1998). Instead, “in order to be considered a prevailing party, that party must show, at the very least, that its position was impro 258, 262; 785 NW2d 829 (2010) (same); Mikelson v United Servs Auto Ass’n, 122 Hawaii 393,400-401; 227 P3d 559 (Hawaii Ct App, 2010) (concluding that satisfaction did not render confirmation moot because confirmation was statutorily mandated and because confirmation is concerned with the propriety of the award itself and is unrelated to enforcement); In re Bernstein Family Ltd Partnership v Sovereign Partners, LP, 66 AD3d 1, 6; 883 NYS2d 201 (2009) (“[I]t is irrelevant in a proceeding to confirm an award whether there is a dispute about whether the award has been fully satisfied.”); Collins v D R Horton, Inc, 361F Supp 2d 1085, 1093 (D Ariz, 2005) (<HOLDING>); Pacific Law Group: USA v Gibson, 6 Cal App
holding appealable order which explicitly denied confirmation vacated award and directed rehearing but stating that we do not imply the order would have been appealable absent the provision denying confirmation holding that an arbitrators award should have been vacated holding that the statute is mandatory holding that payment does not moot a confirmation request holding that confirmation was mandatory regardless of payment unless the award is modified vacated or corrected