Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCP04025, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCP04025    Hearing Date: October 29, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

On September 26, 2024, Petitioner Meyer, Olson, Lowy, Meyers, LLP (MOLM), filed a motion to confirm an arbitration award of $126,121.12 in its favor as against Respondent Erik Oh (Oh) and awarded by a JAMS arbitrator on August 22, 2024. The motion prays for confirmation of the award, judgment according to the award, and for such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

            Respondent has not opposed the motion.

II. Motion

A. 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 either confirm the award; correct and confirm the award; vacate the award; or dismiss the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286 et seq.; 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].) 

“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.) 

B. Analysis

Here, MOLM’s motion does not satisfy the procedural requirements for a petition to confirm arbitration award because it does not (1) attach or set forth the substance of the agreement to arbitrate, or (2) attach a copy of the first “Partial Final Award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4)

The motion satisfies all the other procedural requirements. The motion names the arbitrator (Mot., ¶ 4 [“Honorable Jackson Lucy [sic], Judge of the Superior Court (ret.)”), and attaches a copy of the final arbitration award (Mot., Ex. A.). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.)

MOLM’s motion also names Erik Oh as respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285; see Mot. p. 1.) 

Last, MOLM’s was served and filed within four years after the date the respondent was served with a signed copy of the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288; see Motion, Ex. A., 8/23/24 Proof of Service.)  

The motion to confirm the arbitration award is unopposed. Thus, the motion to confirm the arbitration award is not controverted and the allegations in MOLM’s motion to confirm are accepted as true. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.) 

However, because of the deficiencies noted above, MOLM’s motion is DENIED without prejudice. The Court will entertain a request to continue the motion to correct the deficiency.

III. Conclusion

Petitioner Meyer, Olson, Lowy, Meyers, LLP’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED without prejudice.