Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 25STCP00612, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCP00612 Hearing Date: May 6, 2025 Dept: 76
The following
tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 2:10 PM on May 5, 2025.
Notice of intent
to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1). The Court does not desire oral argument on
the motion addressed herein.
As required by
Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER
PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on May 5, 2025.
Notice to Department 76 should be sent by
email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email. The high volume of telephone calls to
Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to
213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give
notice by email.
Per Rule of Court
3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to
appear is not given.
The underlying dispute involved retention of Petitioner as a corporate communications advisor, specialist and consultant.
The parties entered into a consent arbitration award. Petitioner now seeks confirmation of the arbitration award.
TENTATIVE RULING
Petitioner Sitrick Group, LLC's petition to confirm the Consent Arbitration Award is GRANTED.
Pursuant to ¶ 10 of the arbitration agreement, the request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $5,231.47 (4.5 hours at $1,162.55 per hour—Decl. of Frank W. Nemecek, ¶ 2.)
Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award
The parties entered into a consent arbitration award. Petitioner now seeks confirmation of 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 Consent Award is dated June 21, 2024. It is unclear when the award was served, but the Petition was filed on February 14, 2025. The petition is timely.
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.) 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.(Law Fin. Grp., LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 946-47 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)
Here, assuming the June 21, 2024 award was served on that day, the 100-day period would expire on September 29, 2024. As such, the petition is not prematurely set for hearing.
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 overnight delivery. No opposition has been filed.
A copy of the agreement to submit the matter to arbitration was attached to the Petition as Attachment 4(b).
All parties to the arbitration were named in this Petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) The name of the arbitrator—Hon. David Brickner (Ret.)—is set forth in the Petition at ¶ 6. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4(b).) A copy of the Consent Award is attached to the Petition as Attachment 8(c). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4(c).) The terms of the Award are set forth therein. The stipulated Consent Award was as follows:
CONSEN'I' AWARD
Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Arbitrator hereby issues a Consent Award in
favor of Sitrick Group, LLC and against Julia Haart as follows:
l. For the principal sum of $711,547.05;
2. For 50% of the interest of the principal sum of $711,547.05 at 10% per annum
from and after July 1,2023 until paid in full;
3. For JAMS fees and expenses per the JAMS Statement of Account in the sum of
$2,000.00
(Award, Page 2.)
All the requirements for confirmation of the arbitration award have been satisfied.
Respondent did not file an opposition.
The petition to confirm the Consent Arbitration Award is GRANTED.
Pursuant to ¶ 10 of the arbitration agreement, the request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $5,231.47 (4.5 hours at $1,162.55 per hour—Decl. of Frank W. Nemecek, ¶ 2.)