either of these integrally related claims. And, not surprisingly, while the CLA repeatedly refers to the underlying contract, it does not specifically refer to any other ancillary claims. See note 51 of this opinion. In any event, such claims are not at issue here, and, to the extent they may exist, this Court can address them in a future case. 64 That RCG did not recover the full amount of damages sought is not dispositive with regard to whether it was a prevailing party. For the related determination whether a party is the prevailing party for the purposes of MCR 2.625 (concerning taxation of costs), courts have held that recovery of the full amount of damages is unnecessary See Forest City Enterprises, Inc v Leemon Oil Co, 228 Mich App 57, 81; 57 577, 580; 7 Cal Rptr 2d 878 (1992) (<HOLDING>). But see Stewart Title Guaranty Co v Tilden,
holding that section nine does not limit confirmation of an award to the district court in the district of arbitration and confirmed a new york arbitration over whose parties the court had personal jurisdiction holding that nothing in californias arbitration statute limits confirmation to circumstances in which the award has not heen paid holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding in the context of an arbitration award confirmation proceeding that the decision as to whether to allow additional discovery is an entirely practical one involving a balancing of the need for additional information with its effect on the arbitration process holding that manifest disregard of the law is one of the very unusual circumstances in which a federal court can set aside an arbitration award