Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCP04002, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP04002    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

On October 30, 2023, Petitioner Goodgreens, LLC (Goodgreens) filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award in its favor, as against Respondent Dub Brothers Management, LLC (Dub Brothers), and awarded by a JAMS arbitrator on October 20, 2023, assigned to Department 40 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (the Court).

The Petition attaches a copy of the final award, which reads:

“Having read and considered Cross-Respondent Goodgreens, LLC's ("Goodgreens") Offer to Compromise Pursuant to California Civil Procedure§ 998 for $110,000, Dub Brothers Management, LLC’s (‘Dub’) notice of acceptance of same, and the Arbitrator’s Final Award of $875,0001 in favor of Goodgreens that was issued by the undersigned on August 30, 2023, the Arbitrator now issues a Final Award pursuant to the terms of Goodgreens Offer to Compromise and the Arbitrator’s Final 6 Award issued on August 30, 2023. Accordingly, because the Arbitrator’s prior Final Award in favor of Goodgreens for $875,000 is set off by the more recent award in favor of Dub for $110,000, the revised Final Award shall equal $765,000 to be paid by Dub to Goodgreens, in satisfaction of all claims and counterclaims in this arbitration proceeding. The Arbitrator’s prior Final Award of $875,000 is extinguished. This arbitration proceeding has hereupon concluded. [¶¶] NO OBJECTIONS. Date: October 19, 2023. [¶] [Signature of Goodgreens’ counsel] [¶] [Dub Brothers’ counsel’s signature] [¶] Date: October 20, 2023, APPROVED [¶] [arbitrator’s signature.]”

The agreements attached to the petition make clear that the dispute between the parties involved an agreement for Goodgreens’ purchase of a commercial cannabis cultivation facility owned by Dub Brothers and a management services agreement pursuant to which Goodgreens would exclusively operate and receive the net proceeds from a cannabis sales location seemingly owned by Dub Brothers.

Dept. 40 Proceedings

On October 31, 2023, the Court noticed a case management conference (CMC) for February 27, 2024.

On November 3, 2023, Goodgreens filed a notice of related case identifying the pending 23STCV01117, Goodgreens, LLC v. Walker, et al. as a related case arising from the same parties, same or similar claims, and the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events involving the same or substantially similar questions of law or fact.

That same day, Goodgreens served notice of the CMC hearing on counsel for “Defendants Barry Walker, Brent Walker, Geoffrey Yeterian, and Tradecraft Farms California, Inc.”

On November 17, 2023, Goodgreens filed a notice of service showing electronic service of the notice of hearing for Goodgreens’ petition on Dub Brothers’ counsel, as set for hearing on February 27, 2024, and served that same day.

On December 11, 2023, Goodgreens filed a notice and acknowledgment of receipt signed by counsel for Dub Brothers, acknowledging receipt of the petition to confirm arbitration award.

On January 26, 2024, Goodgreens filed a CMC statement.

On February 9, 2024, Dub Brothers filed a CMC statement. The CMC statement acknowledges that a petition to confirm arbitration award is set for hearing and that the parties have met and conferred but offers no indication that Dub Brothers would oppose the petition or file a cross-petition to vacate or correct the arbitration award.

Dub Brothers has, as of the date of this ruling, filed no opposition to the petition to confirm the arbitration award.

23STCV01117 Proceedings

On January 18, 2023, Goodgreens sued Barry Walker, Brent Walker, Geoffrey Yeterian, Tradecraft Farms California, Inc., and Does 1-10 pursuant to a Complaint alleging claims of (1) Unfair Competition and (2) Fraud and Deceit.

That action is assigned to Department 54 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

On June 28, 2023, Goodgreens filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) in that action.

That FAC alleges as follows. “Royce Clayton, the former Major League Baseball player, beseeched his erstwhile friend and Cross-Complainant Barry Walker to please provide a space in downtown Los Angeles to cultivate marijuana,” where “Clayton made this request in 2017, when cultivating marijuana in Los Angeles was still unlawful,” and “[w]ith misgivings, Walker agree[ing] to prepare a state of the art grow in downtown Los Angeles for Clayton to cultivate his marijuana for sale and distribution. [¶] Walker’s favor to his friend has been returned with nothing but ingratitude and trouble” insofar as “Clayton failed to pay the amount agreed to construct the marijuana grow, failed to take responsibility for the lease, failed to pay his rent or electric bills, failed to keep his grow running, and then abandoned the premises, leaving Walker to clean up Clayton’s mess.” That dispute involved, in relevant part, an agreement pursuant to which Clayton agreed to pay Walker and Dub Brothers $1,100,000 to create a space suitable for growing marijuana located at 1706A and 1710 Griffith Avenue, Los Angeles, California.

(The notice of related case in this action represents that the 23STCV01117 action and this action arise from the same or similar transactions, incidents, or events, or require similar or substantially similar determinations of law or fact.)

On July 13, 2023, Department 54 set a trial date of July 15, 2024.

On August 2, 2023, the four Defendants in that action filed an Answer to the FAC.

On September 8, 2023, Goodgreens filed a petition in that action to confirm a partial arbitration award against Dub Brothers.

On September 15, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation to continue trial to October 14, 2024 or later. The stipulation was based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s conflicts with the Goodgreens-Dub Brothers arbitration (Goodgreens, LLC v. Dub Brothers Management LLC, Reference No. 5220002421) and Plaintiff’s counsel’s need to appear in the trial for ReactX LLC v. Google LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 18STCV09674.

On October 2, 2023, the Court denied the request without prejudice and indicated that “[i]f neither case settles[,] the Court will address schedule as trial date approaches.”

On November 3, 2023, Goodgreens withdrew its 23STCV01117 petition to confirm the arbitration award.

Instant Proceedings

Goodgreens’ 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, vacate 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, Goodgreens’ petition satisfies the procedural requirements for a petition to confirm arbitration award.

The petition properly attaches a copy of the second portion of the arbitration award (Petition, Attach. 8(c), Final Award), names the arbitrator (Petition, § 6 [“Judge Charles Margines (Ret.)”]), and attaches a copy of the Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer (§ 998 Offer) on which the final award is based (Petition, Attach. 8(c), § 998 Offer Acceptance [Dub Brothers’ acceptance of § 998 Offer by Goodgreens to dismiss Dub Brothers’ claims in exchange for $100,000]), thus mostly satisfying Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4, subdivisions (a)-(c).

The Court briefly notes that the petition does not attach the final procedural component of section 1285.4: a copy of the first partial arbitration award in the JAMS proceedings for $875,000 in favor of Goodgreens and a copy of the written opinion in support of that award, as applicable. (See Petition, Attach. 8(c), § 998 Offer [Dub Brothers letter stating “let me respectfully suggest that this $110,000 [offer to compromise] in favor of Dub Brothers should be combined with the previous partial final award of $875,000 in favor of Goodgreens to make a final award of [$]765,000 in favor of Goodgreens”]; see also Petition, Attach. 8(c), Final Award [“Accordingly, because the Arbitrator’s prior Final Award in favor of Goodgreens for $875,000 is set off by the more recent award in favor of Dub for $110,000, the revised Final Award shall equal $765,000 to be paid by Dub to Goodgreens, in satisfaction of all claims and counterclaims in this arbitration proceeding. The Arbitrator’s prior Final Award of $875,000 is extinguished. This arbitration proceeding has hereupon concluded.”].)

However, the Court notes that those documents were filed in the September 8, 2023 23STCV01117 petition to confirm arbitration award, which sought to confirm the partial arbitration award in the Goodgreens-Dub Brothers arbitration. (See 23STCV01117, 9/8/23 Petition, Attachs. 8(c), § 998 Offer [by Goodgreens offering dismissal of its claims in exchange for $875,000] & Notice of Acceptance [by Dub Brothers] & Final Award [entered Aug. 30, 2023 by JAMS arbitrator in relation to this § 998 Offer].)

The Court takes judicial notice of those documents for the sake of efficiency in these proceedings (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 453, subds. (a)-(b)), and thus Goodgreens’ petition satisfies Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4.

The petition also names as respondents all parties to the arbitration (Petition, § 1 [Dub Brothers]) and did not name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award, which is permitted by the Code, thus satisfying Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.

The petition to confirm was served and filed within four years after the date that Goodgreens was served with a signed copy of the award (compare Petition, Attach. 8(c), Final Award [dated Oct. 20, 2023] & 23STCV01117, 9/8/23 Petition, Attach. 8(c), Final Award [entered Aug. 30, 2023], with Petition, p. 1[filed Oct. 30, 2023]), thus satisfying Code of Civil Procedure section 1288.

II. Substantive Discussion

Here, the petition to confirm the arbitration award is unopposed, which logically follows an arbitration award stipulated to by the parties. (Petition, Attach. 8(c), Final Award, p. 1 [Goodgreens and Dub Brothers both executed second Final Award on Oct. 19, 2023]; 23STCV01117, 9/8/23 Petition, Attach. 8(c), Notice of Acceptance [of § 998 Offer by Dub Brothers, which is the basis for the first Final Award].)

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

Goodgreens’ petition is accordingly GRANTED.

The October 20, 2023 arbitration award of $765,000 is CONFIRMED. 

Conclusion

Petitioner Goodgreens, LLC’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

The October 20, 2023 arbitration award of $765,000 is CONFIRMED.

Petitioner Goodgreens, LLC shall file and lodge a proposed judgment within seven calendar days of this order.