Judge David S. Cunningham, Case Number: 24STCP00179, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 24STCP00179, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00179 Hearing Date: April 16, 2024 Dept: 11

Orta (24STCP00179)

Tentative Ruling Re: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Date: 4/16/24

Time: 11:00 am

Moving Party: Christina Lindsey Orta (“Petitioner”)

Opposing Party: None

Department: 11

Judge: David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING

The hearing on the petition to confirm arbitration award is continued. Petitioner needs to serve a corrected notice of hearing.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner describes the case this way:

George Hall, Jr. and Donna Hall (collectively, “the Halls”) filed a Statement of Claim with [the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”)] on June 15, 2021 naming Securities America, Inc. as the Respondent in the action styled Donna T. Hall and George E. Hall Jr., as Trustees of the Hall Trust DTD 3/23/15 v. Securities America, Inc., FINRA No. 21-01517 (“Hall Action”). [Citation.] The claims related to the handling of their investment account at SAI, specifically the purchase of a select few investments. [Citation.] Orta was not named as a Respondent in the Hall Action.

On October 26, 2022, the Hall Action was settled and the case was then dismissed. [Citation.] The Hall Action settled for a nominal amount, namely to obviate litigation fees and costs. [Citation.] Orta did not contribute to the settlement amount nor was she asked to participate in, or contribute to, the settlement. [Citation.]

On April 13, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion to expungement of all references of the Hall Action from her Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) records in a new FINRA matter styled Christina Lindsey Orta vs. Securities America, Inc., FINRA Case No. 23-00977. [Citation.] A hearing took place on October 16, 2023. Respondent to the Petition did not oppose the request for expungement. [Citation.] Furthermore, the Halls were notified of the hearing and their right to appear via telephone, and elected to not participate or attend the hearing. [Citation.] On October 18, 2023, the Chair issued an award granting expungement. [Citation.] The Panel made the following affirmative finding of fact: “[t]he claim, allegation, or information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous” and “[t]he claim, allegation, or information is false.” [Citation.] The Panel made the finding based on, among other things, the following reasons: “[Orta] made suitable recommendations and performed her duties as a representative in a thorough, ethical, and professional manner.” [Citation.] The Chair also reviewed the settlement documentation, considered the amount of payment made, and considered the relevant terms and conditions of the settlement. [Citation.] The Chair also reviewed the documentary evidence and other evidence in the matter, including Orta’s testimony. [Citation.]

(Petition, pp. 3-4, underlining of case names added.)

Here, Petitioner moves to confirm the arbitration award.

LAW

“Until an arbitration award is confirmed (or vacated), it has only the effect of a contract in writing between the parties.” (Knight, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Alternative Dispute Resolution (The Rutter Group December 2023 Update) ¶ 5:527.)

“The procedure by which the prevailing party obtains an enforceable judgment is a petition to confirm the award.” (Ibid.)

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm . . . 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 to confirm is subject to jurisdiction, venue and procedural requirements similar to a motion to vacate or correct the award[.]” (Knight, supra, at ¶ 5:534.)

“Anyone agreeing in California to arbitrate a dispute here is subject to the personal jurisdiction of California courts in proceedings to confirm the award.” (Id. at ¶ 5:535.)

“Under California law, a petition to confirm an award must be filed in the county where the arbitration was held.” (Id. at ¶ 5:535.5.)

In terms of procedural requirements, the petition must:

(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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.4.) And it “must be served and filed at least 10 days, and no later than four years, after service of the award on the petitioner.” (Knight, supra, at ¶ 5:532.)

Notably, “[u]nless a petition to correct or vacate the award has been timely filed, the court must render a judgment confirming the arbitrator’s award.” (Knight, supra, at ¶ 5:528; see also Code Civ. Proc. § 1286 [“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.”].)

“[A] statement of decision explaining the superior court’s decision on the principal controverted issues is not required unless timely requested by one of the parties.” (Knight, supra, at ¶ 5:537.)

“Absent a timely request, the appellate court will imply the superior court made whatever findings are necessary to support the judgment.” (Id. at ¶ 5:537.1, emphasis in original.)

DISCUSSION

The following factors support confirming the arbitration award:

* The petition is timely. (See Weaver Decl., ¶ 9 [declaring that the arbitrator served the award on the parties on October 18, 2023, which is less than four years before Petitioner filed the petition on January 18, 2024].)

* The petition discusses the substance of the arbitration agreement, names the arbitrator, and attaches a copy of the award. (See Petition, p. 3; see also Weaver Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. C.)

* Jurisdiction and venue are satisfied since the arbitration took place in Los Angeles. (See Petition, p. 3.)

* The petition is unopposed.

* No party has filed a motion to vacate or correct the award.

* Confirmation is mandatory in the absence of a timely motion to vacate or correct.

* The record lacks evidence identifying a basis to vacate or correct.

Nevertheless, the Court finds that the matter should be continued. The notice of hearing that Plaintiff served and filed on March 19, 2024 lists the Stanley Mosk Courthouse as to site for the confirmation hearing instead of the Spring Street Courthouse. (See 3/19/24 Notice of Hearing, p. 1.) This defect needs to be fixed, and a new notice needs to be served, before the petition can be granted.