Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCP01971, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org.  Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.



           
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the  matter off calendar.

                       
  

            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court. 
 

 

            If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 23STCP01971    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioners Heng Li’s, Jie Li’s, and Nina Jiang’s unopposed petition to confirm the Consent Award granted by Hon. Suzanne Brugera (Ret.) on January 25, 2021, is granted.  Petitioners are to submit a proposed judgment in ten days. 

          Petitioners Heng Li, Jie Li, and Nina Jiang (collectively, “Li Party”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) move unopposed for this Court to confirm their arbitration award (“Consent Award”).  (Notice of Petition, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§1285 et seq.)

Background

This dispute arises from Respondents MB Development, LLC (“MB Development”) and FMB Consulting, LLC (“FMB Consulting”) (collectively, “Respondents”) entering into a Limited Liability Company Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) with Kevin Zhang, Rockport Development, Inc., and Maestro Investments, Inc. (collectively, “Zhang Parties”) (collectively, “Assignors”) in or around April 2019, wherein Respondents agreed to pay $2,930,637 for Assignors’ membership interests.  (Petition ¶8.)  The Petition states Respondents paid a total of $300,000 under the Agreement and did not make any further payments under the Agreement.  (Petition ¶9.)  On or about December 18, 2019, Respondents were served a notice of default, and Respondents failed to timely cure the default.  (Petition ¶10.)  On January 2, 2020, Assignors assigned all their rights, title, and interest, in and to the Agreement, to Petitioners.  (Petition ¶11.)

On March 20, 2020, pursuant to the Agreement ¶15, Petitioners demanded a mediation with Respondents.  (Petition ¶14.)  The Parties attended mediation on May 19, 2020, but were unable to resolve the matter at mediation.  (Petition ¶14.)

On July 3, 2020, the matter was submitted to arbitration before Hon. Suzanne G. Bruguera (Ret.) (“Arbitrator”) with ADR Services.  (Petition ¶15.)  Prior to the arbitration hearing set for January 2021, and in order to avoid the further expenditure of time, money and resources, the Parties agreed to settle the dispute through a consent award (“Consent Award”) in favor of Petitioners.  (Petition ¶16, Exh. 2.)  On January 25, 2021, the Arbitrator signed the Consent Award.  (See Petition, Exh. 2.)

Petitioner filed its petition on June 5, 2023.  Petitioner filed the instant motion on December 28, 2023.  As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

Arbitration Award

          The party seeking judicial enforcement of a private arbitration award has the burden of proving the award as well as the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.  (Toal v. Tardif (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1223 [holding burden not met by submitting copy of contract with arbitration provision signed by party’s attorney rather than by party personally].)

The specific grounds upon which an arbitrator’s award may be vacated are set forth in C.C.P. §1286.2.  Except for such grounds, arbitration awards are

immune from judicial review.  (See Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 10-11 [limiting grounds for judicial review effectuates the parties’ agreement that the award be final and also reflects that arbitrators need not follow the law and may base their decisions on “broad principles of justice and equity . . . paths neither marked nor traceable by judicial review”].)  Generally, errors of law committed by the arbitrator are not grounds for challenging the arbitration award.  (Id. at pg. 11.)  The sufficiency of the evidence to support the award is immaterial and courts cannot review the same.  (See Morris v. Zuckerman (1968) 69 Cal.2d. 686, 691.)  Courts cannot pass upon the validity of the arbitrator’s reasoning and cannot substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator.  (See Moncharsh, 3 Cal.4th at pg. 11.)

          Petitioners have met their burden to prove the existence of the Consent Award and the existence of the valid Arbitration Agreement.  (Petition ¶16, Exh. 2; Petition ¶¶8, 12, Exh. 1 at ¶¶15-16.)  The Agreement contains a mediation provision followed by an arbitration provision. The arbitration provision states, “If the dispute is not resolved in mediation, then the following Arbitration Provision applies: . . . [¶] (b) Any Claim shall be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to this Arbitration Provision and the applicable rules of ADR Services Inc. . . . [¶] (d) NO PARTY WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE ANY CLAIM IN COURT OR HAVE A JURY TRIAL ON THAT CLAIM . . .. THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION WILL BE FINAL AND BINDING.”  (Petition ¶12, Exh. 1 at ¶¶16(b), (d).)  

          Accordingly, Petitioners’ petition to confirm the Consent Award is granted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Petitioners’ unopposed petition to confirm the Consent Award is granted.  Petitioners are to submit a proposed judgment within ten days.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  March _____, 2024

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court