Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCP00967, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00967    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 52

Petitioner HaHa Smart, Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Petitioner HaHa Smart, Inc. petitions the court to confirm an arbitration award against respondent Blue Sky Energy Solutions, LLC. 

Petitioner did not provide adequate proof of service of this petition.  “A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.”  (CCP § 1290.4(a).)  “If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made,” the service “shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.”  (CCP § 1290.4(b)(1).) 

Petitioner’s proof of service is defective.  It does not state petitioner served a copy of the petition itself.  The proof of service states a registered process server “served copies of: Notice of Hearing on Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award/Declaration of Leah S. Schoen in Support of Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.”  (Proof of service, p. 1, ¶ 2.)  The attached proof of service by mail also states the process server “served copies of the Notice of Hearing on Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award/Declaration of Leah S. Schoen in Support of Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.”  (Id., p. 3, ¶ 2.)  The notice of hearing and supporting declaration are not enough.  Petitioner must serve the petition itself, which it filed with the court on March 27, 2023, on form ADR-106.

The petition to confirm arbitration award is denied without prejudice.