Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 21PSCP00224, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 21PSCP00224    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Petition to Confirm the Contractual Arbitration Award is DENIED WITH prejudice, because despite four attempts to provide a correct petition, Petitioner continues to hold the individual defendant liable.

Background

On May 7, 2021, Petitioner Martha I. Dube Rowley (“Petitioner”) filed a “Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award” (“Petition”) as against Respondent(s) Abraham Anthony Prattella (“Prattella”) and Built on Solid Rock Construction (“BOSR”).

On June 24, 2021, the court denied the petition without prejudice.

On October 20, 2021, the court denied the amended petition without prejudice.

On August 31, 2021, Petitioner filed the instant third petition to confirm the arbitration award.

On October 31, 2023, Pratella filed a Response to the third petition.

On May 3, 2023, the court issued the followed minute regarding the status conference: “Supplemental briefs are allowed but not required. Briefs are to be filed on or before 06/30/2023.”

On September 6, 2023, the court adopted its tentative ruling as final which denied the petition without prejudice “for the sole purpose of filing a renewed petition that excludes Pratella.” (See 9/6/23 minute order.)

On November 1, 2023, petitioner re-filed her petition.

On December 20, 2023, Pratella filed his response.

Discussion

In the court’s three previous rulings, the court has noted that Prattella is not a named party to the arbitration award. As summarized in the court’s 9/6/23 ruling, “all the facts indicate that Prattella as an individual does not have an arbitral award against him and thus is erroneously named as a party.” Based on the court’s analysis, the court “only grant[ed] leave to file a renewed fourth petition that is to exclude Prattella.” (See 9/6/23 ruling.)

But Petitioner again fails to cure the defect. (See generally Opposition.) While the petition correctly identifies the corporation as the respondent (section 1 of petition) and correctly identifies that the arbitrator determined that the respondent is required to pay petitioner $50,000 (section 8 of the petition), petitioner misstates the terms of the award by indicating that the “managing officer is the responsible party.” (See Section 8(b)(4) of the petition.) The arbitration award does not make any such finding. (See Petition, p. 19 of 33 of PDF [Arbitration Award].)

Thus, despite clear instructions that only the corporate defendant is the responsible party and that as such only the corporate defendant is to bear any liability, Petitioner has continued to defy both the arbitrator’s decision and this court’s rulings.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the petition with prejudice.