Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCP00084, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23SMCP00084    Hearing Date: September 17, 2024    Dept: 205

 

 

 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MEYER, OLSON, LOWY & MEYERS, LLP,  

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

AMY NEPI,  

 

Respondent. 

 

  Case No.:  24SMCP00084 

  

  Hearing Date:  September 17, 2024 

  [TENTATIVE] order RE: 

  petitioner’s motion to  

  CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is an action to recover past due legal fees.  Petitioner Meyer, Olson, Lowy & Meyers, LLP is a law firm.  Respondent Amy Nepi hired Petitioner to represent her in her divorce.  The parties entered into a retainer agreement, which provided for binding arbitration before a retired judge with family law experience. 

On August 1, 2024, the Court appointed the Honorable Hank Goldberg as an arbitrator in the matter.  The arbitration hearing commenced on June 24, 2024.  Respondent represented herself.  The Arbitrator issued an award on June 25, 2024 (the “Award”).  (Ex. A to Petition.) 

The Award found as follows: (1) the parties entered into a contract; (2) Petitioner did the things that the contract required it to do, and the attorney fees were reasonably incurred; (3) all the conditions required for Respondent’s performance occurred; (4) Respondent breached the contract by failing to make payments as required by the contract; (5) no excuse or justification for the breach was offered; (6) Petitioner was harmed by the breach; (7) Respondent must reimburse Petitioner for her share of the arbitration fees and costs, $3,750; and (8) the damages are $91,426, 95.  (Id. at pp. 5-6.)  The Award ordered Respondent to pay Petitioner $91,425.95 which is to bear the legal rate of interest of 10%.  (Id. at p. 6.)           

This hearing is on Petitioner’s motion to confirm the Award pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 1285 et seq.  Petitioner also asks the Court to enter a judgment in the sum of $91,425.95 in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent.  There is no opposition to the motion, as of the posting of this tentative ruling.      

LEGAL STANDARD 

 

“Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator's award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.”¿ (O'Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants¿(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.)¿ “Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: it may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.”¿ (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.¿(2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.)¿  

“It is well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.”¿ (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court¿(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.)¿ “Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may ‘review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator’s reasoning, nor may we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator’s legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award’s face.¿ Instead, we restrict our review to whether the award should be vacated under the grounds listed in section 1286.2.¿ [Citations.]’”¿ (Id.)¿   

Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.2, subdivision (a), states, in pertinent part:¿¿¿¿¿¿ 

“Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following:¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

  1. The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.¿¿¿ 

 

  1. There was corruption in any of the arbitrators.¿¿¿ 

 

  1. The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.¿¿¿ 

 

  1. The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.¿¿¿ 

 

  1. The rights of the parties were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title.¿¿¿ 

 

  1. An arbitrator making the award¿ . . . (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. . . .”¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

Limiting grounds for judicial review effectuates the parties’ agreement that the award be¿final. It also reflects that arbitrators ordinarily¿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.” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase¿(1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11;¿Nogueiro v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals¿(1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1195.) 

Only where both (1) the arbitrator abused his or her discretion and (2) there was resulting prejudice, can a trial court properly vacate an arbitration award.¿ (SWAB Financial, LLC v. E*Trade Securities, LLC (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1198.)¿¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

 

The Award satisfies the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §1283.4 because it is in writing, signed by the Arbitrator and includes a determination of all the questions submitted to the arbitrator.  (Ex. A to Petition.)  Accordingly, the Award represents the final resolution of the arbitration and is a final and confirmable arbitration award under California law.   

Code Civ. Proc. §1287.4 states that if an arbitration award is confirmed, “judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith.”  Accordingly, this Court also enters judgment in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent.   

CONCLUSION 

  For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the petition to confirm the arbitration, and issues a judgment for $91,425.95 in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent.   

          

DATED:  September 17, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court