Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC709417, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC709417    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 74

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENT 74 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants Saeed Farkhondehpour, Investment Consultants, LLC, Illusion Holdings, LLC, 1001 Olive, LLC, Downtown Real Property Acquisitors, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiffs Ocean Blue Investments, LLC, Morad Behrooz Neman,

                                                Sion Neman, Hersel Neman.

Petition to Confirm Arbitration

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from multiple disputes over real property.

            On June 8, 2018, Plaintiffs Ocean Blue Investments, LLC, Morad Behrooz Neman, Sion Neman, and Hersel Neman (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendants Saeed Farkhondehpour, Investment Consultants, LLC, Illusion Holdings, LLC, 1001 Olive, LLC, and Downtown Real Property Acquisitors, LLC (Defendants).

            The parties entered arbitration pursuant to a court order on September 19, 2018, and the parties’ stipulation on October 16, 2018.

            On February 4, 2022, the arbitrator issued a final award.

            On March 30, 2023, Defendants filed this petition to confirm the arbitration award.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) “A petition under this chapter shall: (a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement, (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators, (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made…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.)

            Any response to the petition is required to be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.) A response to a petition to confirm an arbitration award may request the court to dismiss the petition or to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.2.) The specific grounds upon which an arbitrator’s award may be vacated are set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a). Arbitration awards are otherwise¿immune¿from judicial review in proceedings to challenge or enforce the award. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11.) “Neither the merits of the controversy ... nor the sufficiency of the evidence to support the arbitrator's award are matters for judicial review.” (Morris v. Zuckerman (1968) 69 Cal.2d 686, 691.) 

DISCUSSION 

            The court finds that Defendants have met the procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the court notes that Plaintiffs have not filed a reply to the petition within 10 days of service.

CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendants’ petition to confirm arbitration.

            Defendants are ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED:  ¿May 17, 2023

_____________________________ 

Colin Leis 

Judge of the Superior Court