Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 25STCP00741, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCP00741    Hearing Date: April 24, 2025    Dept: 52

Petitioner Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Petitioner Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. petitions to confirm an arbitration award against respondent Keith Krupka.  The petition is procedurally defective for three reasons.

1. Failure to Attach Exhibits

            Petitioner’s papers refer to three exhibits purportedly attached: A. respondent’s Submission Agreement, B. petitioner’s Submission Agreement, and C. the arbitration award.  (Petition, ¶¶ 2, 3, 6; Corbett Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3, 6.)  Those exhibits are not attached.    

2. Service on Krupka

Petitioner has not shown valid service of the papers on respondent Krupka.  Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, subdivision (a) provides, “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.”  Subdivision (b)(1) provides, “If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made”, a respondent served in California must be served “in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.”

Petitioner did not attach a copy of the arbitration agreement.  Nothing in the record shows the manner of service provided in the arbitration agreement.  The only proofs of service of petitioner’s papers show service on Krupka by mail and email.  That service was not “in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1); see Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10 et seq.) 

3. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Requirements

The petition asserts that the arbitration award states, “Unless specifically waived in writing by FINRA, parties seeking judicial confirmation of an arbitration award containing expungement relief must name FINRA as an additional party and serve FINRA with all appropriate documents.”  (Pet., ¶ 6.3.)  The award includes expungement relief.  (Ibid.)  Petitioner did not name FINRA as a party and has not shown proof of service of any papers on FINRA.  Nor has petitioner shown that FINRA specifically waived these rights in writing. 

Disposition

            Petitioner Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.’s petition to confirm arbitration award is denied without prejudice.  The court hereby grants petitioner leave to file a first amended petition to confirm arbitration award.