BACKGROUND 

This is an action to recover past due professional fees.  Petitioner Gursey Schneider LLP is a certified public accounting firm.  Respondent Sonal Kumar retained Petitioner to perform accounting services pursuant to a written Litigation Consulting Services Agreement (the “Agreement”).  The services were provided in connection with Kumar’s divorce proceeding.     

Petitioner rendered professional services under the Agreement from December 16, 2016 to December 18, 2017 and provided monthly billing statements.  Respondent never objected to the billing statements.   

Petitioner’s outstanding balance for fees (after application of a $7,500 retainer) as of December 18, 2017 was $123,025.  Petitioner sent written requests for payment to Respondent, but Respondent did not make any payment on her account except for the $7,500 retainer. 

The Agreement provides that past due amounts existing after 60 days following Petitioner’s completion of its primary assignment under the Agreement would bear interest at the rate of 10% simple interest per annum.  Petitioner began charging interest on the outstanding fees of $123,025.00 as of March 1, 2018 (60 days after the December 2017 billing statement containing the last entry of any work performed for Respondent).  The daily interest accrual on $123,025 is $33.71.   

The Agreement provided that any and all disputes relating to unpaid fees and costs shall be submitted to binding arbitration.  Petitioner initiated arbitration pursuant to the Agreement.  An evidentiary hearing was held on October 27, 2021.  Respondent did not appear at the hearing.   

The arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award for Petitioner in the amount of $167,108 plus interest at the rate of 10% simple interest per annum.  The Award was served on Respondent by the arbitrator on November 23, 2021.  Respondent has failed to make payments on the Arbitration Award.   

This hearing is on Petitioner’s petition to confirm the Arbitration Award pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 1285 et seq.  There was no opposition filed 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:¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

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 Arbitration 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. B to Petition.)  Accordingly, the Arbitration Award represents the final resolution of the arbitration and is a final and confirmable arbitration award under California law. 

Petitioner is also entitled to its fees and costs incurred in connection with this petition.  (See Stermer v. Modiano Constr. Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 264, 272 (awarding fees in connection with enforcing arbitration award).)  The Agreement states at page 4, paragraph 3 that “in the event civil proceedings to confirm the 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 judgment.”  (Ex. A to Petition.)   

Petitioner’s counsel avers Petitioner will incur at $3,595 in fees in connection with the Petition.  Counsel has been practicing for 16 years, and he charges an hourly rate of $395.  The Court concludes this hourly rate is reasonable.  Counsel also avers he has spent 5 hours preparing the Petition and will spend another 3 hours attending the hearing.  The Court finds these hours are excessive and will reduce the time spent to 6 hours (5 hours on the Petition and 1 hour on the hearing).  Accordingly, the Court will award fees in the amount of $2,370.    

CONCLUSION 

  For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the petition to confirm the arbitration, and awards $2,370 in attorneys’ fees to Petitioner.