Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22SMCP00312, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCP00312    Hearing Date: October 14, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Courthouse | Department 200

Background

Petitioner Gursey Schneider LLP (“Petitioner”) commenced this action by filing a Petition for Confirmation of Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondent Fang Huang (“Respondent”).

Legal Standard

“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 ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) 

“The petition … 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 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 must be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.)

“If an award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith. The judgment so entered has the same force and effect as, and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action of the same jurisdictional classification; and it may be enforced like any other judgment of the court in which it is entered, in an action of the same jurisdictional classification.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.)

“The scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow. Courts may not review the merits of the controversy, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award, or the validity of the arbitrator's reasoning.” (Dept. of Personnel Admin. v. Cal. Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200 [emphasis added].) “With limited exceptions, ‘“an arbitrator's decision is not generally reviewable for errors of fact or law, whether or not such error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice to the parties.”’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.)

Analysis

The court finds that the Petition satisfies the requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.5, because it attaches a copy of the parties’ contract containing the agreement to arbitrate, sets forth the name of the arbitrator, and submits copies of the award and arbitrator’s written opinion.

The Petition alleges the following. On July 28, 2015, Respondent hired the Petitioner to perform accounting services. (Pet. ¶ 4.) The parties entered into a Litigation Consulting Services Engagement Agreement (the “Agreement”), in which the Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner a retainer fee of $7,500, and thereafter, an hourly rate of each individual working on Respondent’s account. (Pet. ¶¶ 4, 5; Exh. A – a copy of the Agreement.)

The Agreement contained an arbitration provision which provided: “Any controversy, claim, or dispute relating to [Petitioner’s] unpaid fees for professional services and costs rendered under this Agreement shall be submitted for binding arbitration to the American Arbitration Association [AAA] … unless the amount of the controversy, claim, or dispute is within the jurisdiction limits of the Small Claims Court ….” (Pet. ¶ 5; Exh. A, p. 3, the last paragraph.)

After the Respondent failed to pay Petitioner for accounting services, the Petitioner initiated AAA arbitration proceedings against the Respondent in accordance with the arbitration provision. (Pet. ¶¶ 6, 7.)

On or about May 20, 2022, the arbitrator (Leslie M. Werlin) issued an award (the “Arbitration Award”) against the Respondent for $90,724.76. (Pet. ¶ 7; Exh. B – a copy of the Arbitration Award and arbitrator written opinion, p. 28.) The award consisted of a principal amount of $62,199.80 plus interest in the amount of $28,524.96. (Pet. Exh. B, p. 28, ¶ 1.) None of the parties made a request for arbitration attorney fees and the arbitrator denied the Petitioner’s request for arbitration costs. (Pet. Exh. B, p. 28, ¶ 3.) “This Final Award is in full resolution of all of the Parties’ claims submitted in the arbitration. All claims not expressly granted [therein were thereby] denied.” (Pet. Exh. B, p. 28.) The arbitrator served Respondent a copy of the Arbitration Award on May 20, 2022. (Pet. ¶ 8; Exh. C – a copy of the letter the AAA sent to the parties enclosing copies of the Arbitration Award.)

Petitioner’s counsel filed a declaration attesting to the facts above. (Pet., Declaration of Andrew Wright (“Wright Decl.”), ¶¶ 1-2.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6 requires any response to the Petition be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.) Here, Petitioner served Respondent with the Petition on July 6, 2022. (See Pet., last page – a copy of the Proof of Service.) However, as of October 10, 2022, no response to the Petition has been filed.

Accordingly, the court finds the Petition procedurally proper, supported by evidence, and therefore, grants the Petition.

Under California law, a court can award attorney’s fees and costs in connection with a petition to confirm arbitration award. Code of Civil Procedure “Section 1293.2 provides ‘[t]he court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title [governing arbitration] as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) ... of this code.’” (Cohen v. TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program, LLC (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 840, 877.) “Section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A), provides that items recoverable as costs include attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract. ‘The judicial proceedings covered by this provision include petitions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 877-878.) “‘The award of costs pursuant to section 1293.2, including attorney fees when authorized by contract, is mandatory.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 878.)

Here, the parties’ arbitration agreement provided: “In the event civil proceedings to confirm the arbitration award as judgment are required, the prevailing party may be entitled to receive all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to the confirmation and enforcement of the judgment.” (Pet., Exh. A, p. 5, last sentence of the last paragraph.) Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to receive all “reasonable” attorney’s fees and costs because this civil proceeding was required, and Petitioner is the prevailing party.

In his declaration, counsel requests attorney’s fees of $2,800 and costs of $435 to be included in the judgment. (Wright Decl., ¶ 3.) The attorney’s fees consist of 5 hours counsel spent preparing the moving papers and 3 hours he anticipates spending attending this hearing, for a total of 8 hours at a billing rate of $350 per hour. (Wright Decl., ¶ 3.)

The court finds the requested fees unreasonable because it is unlikely that counsel will spend 3 hours at the hearing for this motion. Therefore, the court reduces the requested attorney’s fees to $2,100 (for 1 hour counsel will spend at the hearing) for a total award of $2,535 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Petitioner Gursey Schneider LLP’s petition for confirmation of arbitration award and request for attorney’s fees and costs, for a judgment total of $93,259.76 against Respondent Fang Huang. The judgment includes the arbitration award of $90,724.76, and reduced attorney’s fees and costs of $2,535 incurred in this action.

The court orders the Petitioner to file and serve a revised proposed order within ten (10) days of this ruling.

Petitioner to give notice.

Dated: October 14, 2022

__________________________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court