Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV31211, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31211 Hearing Date: January 31, 2024 Dept: 76
Pursuant to California Rule of Court
3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed
herein. Counsel must contact the staff
in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the
tentative, or to argue the matter. As
required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL
OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and
argue.
Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to
smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.
Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.
Plaintiffs entered into an
agreement to purchase the subject property from the Seller/Trustee Defendants.
However, after the parties entered into the purchase agreement and the property
was in escrow, the Seller/Trustee Defendants entered into an agreement to convey
easements and associated interest in the subject property to Defendants Spectrum
Development, Inc., acting through its principal Defendant Boudreau. The effect
of the conveyance of rights was to deprive Plaintiffs of the ownership, use and
enjoyment and rights to finance 1.00 acre of the 3.47 acres previously conveyed
to them. Defendants have failed to rescind the conveyance. Plaintiffs seek to
establish title to the interest conveyed after they entered into the purchase
agreement.
Plaintiffs Jennifer Chrisman and
Carey Chrisman petition to confirm the Partial Final Arbitration Award.
TENTATIVE RULING
The hearing on the Petition To
Confirm Partial Final Arbitration Award is CONTINUED to March 12, 2024 at 8:30
a.m.
Petitioners are to give immediate notice of the continuance and of the Court’s ruling.
Motion To Confirm Partial Final Arbitration Award
Although a petition to confirm arbitration award may be filed after 10 days of the service of the award (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1288.4), the hearing must be at least 100 days after the service of the award (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1288.2), which is the period of time in which the respondent may either file a file a petition to vacate the award, even if that time is beyond the 10 days in which the respondent may file a response to the petition. (Civ. Proc. Code, §§ 1285.2, 1290.6.)
Here, the award was served by e-mail on November 28, 2023. The 100-day period expires on March 7, 2024.
As articulated by the California Supreme Court, it appears that a response to a petition to confirm an arbitration award, which response seeks to vacate or reduce the award, may be served within 100 days of the service of the award.
The Act also sets out a more specific set of procedures
governing postarbitration proceedings, including deadlines by which parties
seeking to confirm or vacate an arbitral award must file those requests with
the court. (See Code Civ. Proc., pt. 3, tit. 9, ch. 4 [“Enforcement
of the Award”].) A party seeking to confirm the arbitral award may file a
petition within four [*946] years of the service of the final
award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.) A party seeking to vacate the arbitral
award, however, has much less time. A request to vacate may be made either
in a petition to vacate (id., § 1285) or in a
response to the petition to confirm (id., § 1285.2). Regardless of the method, the Act
imposes the same deadline: “A petition to vacate an award … shall be served
and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed
copy of the award on the petitioner” (id., § 1288), and
identically, “[a] response requesting that an award be vacated … shall
be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of service of a
signed copy of the award” on the respondent (id., § 1288.2).
. . .
Under the plain terms of sections 1288 and 1288.2, Key had 100 days from the service of the final award to request that the arbitration award be vacated—whether she chose to do so via a standalone petition to vacate or via a response to Lender's petition to confirm the award.Key's argument that her 139-day filing was nonetheless timely depends on the proposition that section 1290.6—a general statutory provision permitting parties to extend the default 10-day period for any responsive filing in an arbitration matter—supersedes the specific 100-day deadline for requesting that an arbitration award be vacated, at least when a petition to confirm has been filed within 100 days of the award's service. But under the governing statutes, neither deadline supersedes the other. On the contrary, when a filing both (1) responds to a petition to confirm, and (2) requests that the arbitration award be vacated, both deadlines apply: (1) Absent a written agreement or court order, the response must be filed within 10 days after service of the petition to confirm and (2) in any event, no later than 100 days after service of the award. This rule respects the plain language of both provisions without reading an unnecessary conflict into the statutory scheme. (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387 [241 Cal. Rptr. 67, 743 P.2d 1323] [“[S]tatutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible.”].)
(Law Fin. Grp., LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 946-47 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)
As such, the hearing on the Petition To Confirm
Partial Final Arbitration Award is CONTINUED to March 12, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.