Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCP03931, Date: 2024-02-28 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.

Petitioner ABP Parcel 8, LLC’s petition to confirm the arbitration award is granted. Petitioner may separately move for a motion to grant prejudgment interest, fees, and costs.

Respondent Marina Pacifica, LLC’s cross-petition to vacate the arbitration award is denied.

Petitioner ABP Parcel 8, LLC (“ABP”) (“Petitioner”) petitions this Court to confirm the arbitration award. (Notice of Petition, pg. 1.)

Respondent Marina Pacifica, LLC (“Marina”) (“Respondent”) cross-petitions this Court to vacate the arbitration award. (Cross-Petition Vacate, pg. 3.)

CRC, Rule 3.1113(d) provides, “[e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages. In a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 20 pages. No reply or closing memorandum may exceed 10 pages. The page limit does not include the caption page, the notice of motion and motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, the table of contents, the table of authorities, or the proof of service.”

CRC, Rule 3.1113(e) provides, “[a] party may apply to the court ex parte but with written notice of the application to the other parties, at least 24 hours before the memorandum is due, for permission to file a longer memorandum. The application must state reasons why the argument cannot be made within the stated limit.”

CRC, Rule 3.1113(g) provides, “[a] memorandum that exceeds the page limits of these rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.”

Petitioner’s and Respondents’ filings greatly exceed the 15-page maximum stated in CRC, Rule 3.1113(d). Parties violated CRC, Rule 3.1113(e) by failing to apply to the court ex parte with written notice of the application to the other parties, at least 24 hours before the memorandum is due, for permission to file a longer memorandum stating the reasons why the argument cannot be made within the stated limit. The Court, in its discretion, will consider parties’ briefings up to their applicable page limits as defined in CRC, Rule 3.1113(d).

On or about August 30, 2021, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a written agreement to arbitrate (“Agreement”). (Petition ¶4(a).) Paragraph 6 of the Agreement provides for arbitration of disputes arising out of the Agreement. (Petition ¶¶4(b)-(c), Attachment 4(b).) The subject of arbitration is the meaning of ¶25 of two ground leases between Petitioner, as successor ground lessor, and Respondent, as successor ground lessee, and affirmative defenses. (Petition ¶5.)

Hon. Elizabeth A. White (ret.) was appointed as arbitrator. (Petition ¶6.) The arbitration hearing took place from May 22, 2023, until May 31, 2023, at JAMS, 1925 Century Park E., Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90067. (Petition ¶7.)

The arbitration award (“Award”) was made on October 10, 2023. (Petition ¶8(a).) The Award requires Respondent to pay Petitioner $2,829,433.78. (Petition ¶8(b)(1).) The Award also declares the meaning of ¶25 of the ground leases, rejects Respondent’s affirmative defenses, and provides the amount of the Award. (Petition ¶¶8(b)(4), (c), Attachment 8(c).) Petitioner alleges that a signed copy of the Award was actually served on October 10, 2023. (Petition ¶9(b).)

On October 25, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant petition requesting this Court confirm the award and enter judgment according to it. (Petition ¶10(a).) Petitioner requests this Court award Petitioner interest from October 10, 2023, at the statutory rate, award costs of suit according to proof, and award Petitioner attorney fees incurred in this action according to proof. (Petition ¶¶10(d)(1), (e)(2), (f)(2).)

On November 3, 2023, Respondent filed its opposition to Petitioner’s petition as well as a cross-petition to vacate the Award (“Cross-Petition”). Respondent’s Cross-Petition seeks to vacate the Award because the award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or other unfair means; the misconduct of a neutral arbitrator substantially prejudiced Respondent’s rights; the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority and the Award cannot be fairly corrected; and the arbitrator unfairly refused to postpone the hearing or to hear evidence useful to settle the dispute. (Cross-Petition ¶¶10(c)(1)(a), (c)(1)(c)-(e).) Further, Respondent does not request a new arbitration hearing. (Cross-Petition ¶10(c)(3).) Cross-Petitioner requests an award for costs of suit according to proof, attorney fees according to proof, and an order that should there ever be a further arbitration rehearing, it must proceed before a new arbitrator and that this Court issue a statement of decision on the instant Cross-Petition. (Cross-Petition ¶¶10(e)(2), (f)(2), (g).)

On December 15, 2023, Petitioner filed its reply to the Petition and opposition to the Cross-Petition. On January 26, 2024, Respondent filed its reply to the Cross-Petition.

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].)

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 evidence 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.)

Interpretation of the underlying contract is ordinarily a question of law for the arbitrator, not the court: “It is the arbitrator’s construction which was bargained for; and so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts have no business overruling him because their interpretation of the contract is different from his.” (United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp. (1960) 363 US 593, 599.)

Petitioner has met its burden to prove the arbitration award and the existence of the valid arbitration agreement. (Petition ¶¶4(a), (c); Attachments 4(b) at ¶6; Petition ¶8(c), Attachment 8c.)

Respondent’s objections to the confirmation of the Award are not well taken. An award may not be attacked for purported wrong arbitrator determinations of law, rule, interpretation, evidence, relevance, materiality, credibility, agreement, etc. A court may not substitute whatever determinations it might make for those made by the arbitrator. (See, e.g., Morris, 69 Cal.2d at pg. 691; Moncharsh, 3 Cal.4th at pg. 11; Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) 7 Cal.5th 350, 370 [“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.”].) Respondent was not prevented from putting on its case in arbitration. (See Heimlich, 7 Cal.5th at 368; Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1092.) Further, the arbitration comported with the JAMS Comprehensive rules, which govern the arbitration proceedings. (Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1426, 1440 [affirming the primacy of JAMS Comprehensive Rules and “final” arbitrator authority].)

Petitioner requests prejudgment interest, fees, and costs incurred on the cross-petitions before this Court. The Court is not inclined to grant such fees on a motion to confirm arbitration award, and in response to the instant ruling, parties can properly argue and challenge attorneys’ fee requests and prejudgment interest.

Petitioner’s petition to confirm the arbitration award is granted. Petitioner may separately move for a motion to grant prejudgment interest, fees, and costs.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court