Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV03174, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03174    Hearing Date: July 12, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

On January 26, 2021, Plaintiffs Second Site, LLC, Michael Sapir, and Ronald Glantz (collectively, Plaintiffs) initiated this action against Defendants Selan Law Firm and Lisa F. Selan (collectively, Defendants), asserting the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Legal Malpractice; (3) Breach of Statutory Duty under California Business and Professions Code § 6068; and (4) Breach of Business and Professions Code § 17200.

On April 7, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the instant case and submit their dispute to binding arbitration.

The arbitration award was made on May 10, 2024, granting summary judgment to Defendants (“Respondents”) and ordering Plaintiffs’ (“Claimants”) complaint dismissed with prejudice. 

On June 11, 2024, Defendants filed a petition to confirm a contractual arbitration award as against Plaintiffs. The petition prays for confirmation of the award, judgment according to the award. 

Defendants’ petition in this action is now before the Court.

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Legal Standard

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.)

“A proceeding under th[e] [Arbitration title of the Code of Civil Procedure] in the courts of this State [i.e., pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1280-1294.4] is commenced by filing a petition. Any person named as a respondent in a petition may file a response thereto. The allegations of a petition are deemed to be admitted by a respondent duly served therewith unless a response is duly served and filed. The allegations of a response are deemed controverted or avoided.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.)

The petition must: “(a) [s]et forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement”; “(b) [s]et forth the names of the arbitrators” and “(c) [s]et forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) The petition must also “name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) A petition to confirm an award must be served and filed within four years after the date the petitioner was served with a signed copy of the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.)

If a petition or response requesting confirmation is duly filed and served, the court must confirm, correct and confirm, or vacates the award or dismiss the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286; see Horn v. Gurewitz (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 255, 258; Pacific Law Group U.S.A. v. Gibson (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 577, 580; Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corp. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.)

“The court may not vacate an award unless … [¶] [a] petition or response requesting that the award be vacated has been duly served or filed ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.4, subd. (a).)  A response seeking to correct and confirm or vacate an arbitration award must be served and filed within ten days of service of a petition to confirm that same arbitration award, unless the timeframe is extended by agreement of the parties or “for good cause, by order of the court.” Thus, a court may not vacate an award pursuant to a petition for that relief that was not duly served or filed. (See Oaktree Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Bernard (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 60, 64 [a response served out of the ten-day window has not been “duly served” as required for relief by Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.4].)

Statutes set forth specific grounds upon which an arbitrator’s award may be vacated. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2.) Except on these grounds, arbitration awards are immune from judicial review in proceedings to challenge or enforce the award. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 12-13 (Moncharsh).) Thus, courts will not review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award. (Morris v. Zuckerman (1968) 69 Cal.2d 686, 691.) Nor will courts pass upon the validity of the arbitrator’s reasoning. (Ibid.) The court simply may not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator. (Ibid.) Further, errors of fact or law committed by the arbitrator, no matter how egregious, are not grounds for challenging the arbitrator’s award under California law. (Moncharsh, supra, at p. 11.)

“If an [arbitration] award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith. The judgment so entered has the same force and effect as and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action of the same jurisdictional classification; and it may be enforced like any other judgment of the court in which it is entered, in an action of the same jurisdictional classification.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.)

Order Confirming Arbitration Award: GRANTED.

I. Procedural Requirements

Here, Defendants’ petition satisfies the procedural requirements for a petition to confirm arbitration award.

The petition properly (1) attaches a copy of the retainer agreement between the parties that includes an arbitration clause (Pet., Attach. 4(b), § 17), (2) names the arbitrator (Petition, § 6 [“Judge Victor E. Bianchini (Ret.)”]; and (3) attaches a copy of the arbitration award (Petition, Attach. 8(c), Final Award). This satisfies Code of Civil Procedure § 1285.4.

The petition also names as respondents all parties to the arbitration (Petition, § 1 [Plaintiffs]), thus satisfying Code of Civil Procedure § 1285.

The petition to confirm was served on June 11, 2024 and filed within four years after the date that Defendant was served with a signed copy of the award, which satisfies Code of Civil Procedure § 1288.

II. Substantive Discussion

Here, the petition to confirm the arbitration award is unopposed. (Petition, Attach. 8(c), Final Award, p. 1; 4/1/21 Stipulation and Order to Stay Case and Submit Dispute to Binding Arbitration.)

As a result, the petition to confirm the arbitration award is not controverted and the allegations in Defendants’ petition to confirm are accepted as true. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.)

Defendants’ petition is accordingly GRANTED.

The May 10, 2024 arbitration award is CONFIRMED. 

Conclusion

Defendants Selan Law Firm and Lisa F. Selan’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

The May 10, 2024 arbitration award is CONFIRMED.

Defendants shall file a proposed judgment and file and served that proposed judgment within seven days of this order.