Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCP00271, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCP00271    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PETITION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice because the final award is different than the judgment sought, and Petitioner has not filed a petition to correct the final award (which otherwise appears untimely).

Background

On June 10, 2024, Petitioner Bill Me Later, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as servicing agent for WebBank filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award that was made on 5/2/24 between Petitioner and Respondents Hong Supply, Inc., a California Corporation, d/b/a Hongville and Ting Hong Yeung (the guarantor) regarding a 6/20/23 loan agreement in the amount of $150,000.00.[1]

On June 13, 2024, Petitioner filed a ‘MOTION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT’ to confirm the arbitration award that is based upon the 6/10/24 petition submitted. (Motion p. 2:12-14.)

Legal Standard

Petitioner brings forth the motion pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (which governs all claims and demands relating to the dispute resolved by the arbitration) and Code of Civ. Pro., § 1286.2. A petition to confirm an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1288.) The required contents of a petition and response to a petition are set out in Section 1285.4 and 1285.6. The court must confirm the award as made unless it corrects or vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1286.)

Discussion

Petitioner seeks judgment against Respondents for $105,034.18 jointly and severally, plus interest and costs, calculated as follows: $96,009.18 for Principal under Agreement + $5,750.00 Attorneys’ Fees Costs and $ 3,275.00 in Arbitration Fees. (The Final Award was served upon Respondent on May 14, 2024 and served upon the Guarantor on May 17, 2024.)

However, the award itself provides a different total award: $104,034.18. (Petition, Ex. 8(c), p. 23 of 33 of PDF.) Petitioner acknowledges this discrepancy footnote 1 of its petition attributing it to an “error by Arbitrator Krueger.”  But this court, as noted in the petition, “shall enter judgment in conformity with the arbitration award.” (Memorandum of Points and Authorities, p. 5:10-11, citing Code of Civ. Proc., § 1287.4, emphasis added.) While the court has the power to correct an award if the court determines that “[t]here was an evident miscalculation of figures” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.6., subd. (a), emphasis added)—and here, there is an “evidence miscalculation” as the principal under the agreement, attorney fees, and arbitration fees are the same in the final award but merely tallied incorrectly—the court cannot do so until “[a] petition or response requesting that the award be corrected has been duly served and filed.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §1286.8, subd. (a).)

With respect to time for service and filing of a petition to correct an award, the petition must be filed at least 10 days but not more than 100 days after the date that the award was served on the petitioner. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4; Knass v. Blue Cross of California (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 390.) 100 days from the date the award was served on Petitioner, May 2, 2024, is August 10, 2024; therefore, it appears any attempt at correcting the award untimely.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, as the award Petitioner seeks this court to confirm is not the award made by the arbitrator, the petition is denied without prejudice.