Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV04681, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV04681 Hearing Date: March 11, 2025 Dept: 76
Plaintiffs allege that the Tesla salesperson misrepresented that the 2023 Tesla Model Y would be equipped with parking sensors, but it was in fact, not.
The Court granted Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay this action.
Defendant Tesla, Inc. moves to confirm the arbitration award.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s motion to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED.
Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award
Defendant Tesla, Inc. moves to confirm the arbitration award.
The petition to confirm must be served and filed no later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288) but may not be served and filed until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.4.)
The award is dated December 12, 2024. It is unclear when the award was served, but the Amended Petition was filed on February 14, 2025. The petition is timely.
Any party to an arbitration award may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286 [bold emphasis added].) A petition to confirm a binding arbitration shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name any other parties to be bound by the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) The petition shall (1) set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement; (2) set forth the name(s) of the arbitrator(s); and (3) set forth or have attached a copy of the award and written opinion of the arbitrator. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4(a)-(c).)
Here, the petition was served by electronic mail. Respondent/Plaintiff filed an opposition on the merits without objecting to the method of service, thereby waiving any defect in the method of serving the petition.
A copy of the agreement to submit the matter to arbitration was attached to the Amended Petition as Attachment 4(b).
All parties to the arbitration were named in this Amended Petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) The name of the arbitrator—James M. Gansinger—is set forth in the Amended Petition at ¶ 6. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4(b).) A copy of the award and written opinion is attached to the Amended Petition as Attachment 8(c). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4(c).) The terms of the Award are set forth therein. The award was as follows:
Notwithstanding the ruling on the merits
in this case, the Arbitrator cannot conclude that the claims asserted herein were
filed for purposes of harassment nor were they patently frivolous. Accordingly,
there will be neither an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Respondent nor a
reallocation of the Arbitrator’s fees and costs.
The administrative fees of the American
Arbitration Association totaling $2,000.00 shall be borne as incurred, and the compensation
of the arbitrator totaling $7,800.00 shall be borne by Respondent Tesla, Inc.
. . .
For the reasons stated above, Claimants’
claims are denied. I have considered all
arguments and evidence put forward by
the Parties in relation to the claims and defenses
presented in this proceeding, whether
or not they are explicitly addressed in this Final
Award. Any argument not expressly addressed
in this Award was found to be unavailing
or unnecessary to reach. This Award
is in full settlement of all claims submitted to this
Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby
denied.
(Award, Page 21.)
All the requirements for confirmation
of the arbitration award have been satisfied.
Plaintiffs/Respondents filed an opposition
which argues as follows:
1. Tesla’s Petition to Confirm Award
of Arbitrator is not Properly Before this Court as an
appeal to the arbitration hearing
is on-going;
The Amended Petition attached as Attachment
9 a letter from the AAA dated February 10, 2025, indicating that the AAA can only
handle an appeal of the arbitration award if
the parties have agreed that an appeal is allowed, but the AAA
did not find that this was satisfied, so the AAA considers the arbitration closed.
As such, this
argument is MOOT.
2. The rights of the parties were
substantially prejudiced by the arbitrator’s manifest
disregard of the law. Also, the reasoning
of the arbitrator is unsound.
Plaintiffs/Respondents present a number
of arguments which are basically claims that the arbitrator committed errors of
law. This is not a basis to vacate an award,
and Plaintiffs/Respondents do not present any permissible basis to do so.
Most legal errors in arbitration are not reviewable. (Citations omitted.) An award may be vacated only for fraud, corruption, misconduct, an undisclosed conflict, or similar “circumstances involving serious problems with the award itself, or with the fairness of the arbitration process.” (Citation omitted.) Otherwise, judicial corrections are limited to remedying “obvious and easily correctable mistake[s],” “technical problem[s],” and actions in excess of authority so long as the correction leaves the merits of the decision unaffected. (Citations omitted.) “[B]y voluntarily submitting to arbitration, the parties have agreed to bear the risk [of uncorrectable legal or factual error] in return for a quick, inexpensive, and conclusive resolution to their dispute.” (Citation omitted.) . . . “‘[I]t is within the power of the arbitrator to make a mistake either legally or factually. When parties opt for the forum of arbitration they agree to be bound by the decision of that forum knowing that arbitrators, like judges, are fallible.’” (Citations omitted)
(Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) 7 Cal.5th 350, 367, 370.)
As such, there is no reason to vacate or otherwise refuse to confirm the arbitration award.
Accordingly, the
petition to confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.