Judge: David Sotelo, Case: BC723902, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC723902 Hearing Date: September 28, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Miguel Valencia Jr. and
Lizette Valencia.
On October
2, 2018 Plaintiffs Miguel Valencia Jr. and Lizette Valencia filed a Complaint
against Defendants Armando Mendoza, Coastal Holdings, Inc., and Class A Realty,
Inc., relating to the purchase of a Property and failure to disclose defects in
that Property. On January 25, 2019, this matter was ordered to arbitration.
On August
23, 2022, an arbitrator found in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered Defendants to
pay monetary damages, prejudgment interest, punitive damages, attorney’s fees,
and costs (the “Arbitration Award” and Plaintiffs filed this Petition to
Confirm that Arbitration Award.
Defendants
filed an untimely Opposition, asking to continue this hearing April 3, 2023, so
that their Petition to vacate the Arbitration could be heard together.
Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made
may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (CCP §1285.) When a petition to confirm an award is filed,
the superior court has four courses of conduct available: to confirm the award,
to correct and confirm it, to vacate it, or to dismiss the petition. (Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional
Corp. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.) A petition to confirm an arbitrator's award
must include: (a) a copy of the agreement to arbitrate; (b) the names of the
arbitrators; and (c) a copy of the award and the written opinion of the
arbitrators, if any. (See CCP § 1285.4.)
CCP § 1286.4 provides in pertinent part that “[t]he court
may not vacate an award unless: (a) A petition or response requesting that the
award be vacated has been duly served or filed … .” (Emphasis added.) Additionally, CCP § 1290.6 requires that such
a response be served and filed within 10 days of service of the petition,
unless the timeframe is extended by agreement of the parties or “for good
cause, by order of the court.” Thus, a
court may not vacate the award that was not duly served or filed. (See Oaktree Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Bernard
(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 60, 64 [a response served out of the 10 day window has
not been “duly served” as required for relief by CCP § 1286.4].)
The Court must confirm the Arbitration Award because
Defendants response to this Petition is untimely and was not duly served or
filed.
Defendants did not serve or file their response until twelve
days after the Petition was filed and served.
In addition, Defendants fail to present any facts or evidence that there
is good cause to extend the timeframe to
file a response.
Defendants’ representation it is preparing a petition to
vacate is insufficient, and as discussed previously, such a petition is
untimely. Defendants response fails for the aforementioned reasons, but also
fails because Defendants fail to set forth any grounds as to why the
Arbitration Award should be vacated. (Cinel
v. Christopher (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 759, fn 5 [Arbitration awards are
subject to very limited judicial review, and the grounds upon which a court may
vacate an arbitration award are limited by Code of Civil Procedure section
1286.2.]) Moreover, Defendants fail to
provide any evidence to show that the evidentiary ruling prejudiced them
because the ruling “influenced the outcome of the arbitration.”¿ (Employers
Ins. Of Wausau v.¿Nat’l¿Union Fire Ins. Co.¿(9th Cir. 1991)¿933 F.2d 1481,
1490.) While Defendants contends that
the arbitrator refused to admit critical evidence,¿the general rule in
California remains that the grounds for vacating an arbitration award are
exclusively statutory and there is no statutory provision for vacating an award
on mere grounds of¿a refusal to hear¿evidence, without more. (Richey v. AutoNation, Inc. (2015)
60 Cal.4th 909, 916.)
Thus, Plaintiff’s Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award
is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award is
GRANTED.