Judge Elaine Lu, Case 23STCP00287 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 23STCP00287, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00287 Hearing Date: May 9, 2023 Dept: 26

5/9/23

23STCP00287

“A response requesting that an award be vacated or that an award be corrected shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of service of a signed copy of the award[.]” (CCP § 1288.2.) “The filing and service deadline for a petition to vacate is jurisdictional; noncompliance deprives a court of the power to vacate an award unless the party has timely requested vacation in response to a petition to confirm.” (Santa Monica College Faculty Assn. v. Santa Monica Community College Dist. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 538, 544–545.)

As the Court of Appeal has noted, “while a petition to confirm an award may be served and filed within four years, the petition to vacate or correct an award must be served and filed within 100 days after the service of the award on the petitioner. [Citations.] The same 100–day limitation applies when vacation or correction of the award is sought by response.... To this latter rule there is only one exception. When the party petitions the court to confirm the award before the expiration of the 100–day period, respondent may seek vacation or correction of the award by way of response only if he serves and files his response within 10 days after the service of the petition (§ 1290.6). Unless the response is duly served and filed, under section 1290 the allegations of the petition are deemed to be admitted by respondent. [Citation.]” (DeMello v. Souza, at p. 83, 111 Cal.Rptr. 274; see also Lovret v. Seyfarth (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 841, 856, 101 Cal.Rptr. 143 [10–day limit of section 1290.6 trumps 100–day period of section 1288.2 to file a response after other side files a petition to confirm arbitration award]; Coordinated Const., Inc. v. J.M. Arnoff Co. (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 313, 318, 47 Cal.Rptr. 749 [same]; 12 Miller and Starr, Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 35.93, pp. 35–275–35–276 [“If a petition to confirm has been filed, the response requesting that the award be vacated must be filed within 10 days after service of the petition. If no response to a petition to vacate is filed within the required time, the allegations of the petition are deemed admitted by the respondent. The response is invalid if not filed within the 10–day period even though it was filed within 100 days after service of the award.”].) (Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. v. Bernard (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 60, 66–67.)

Thus, the Courts of Appeal have established two deadlines that a petition to vacate or correct an arbitration award must satisfy. “ ‘A petition to vacate an award ... shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.’ (§ 1288, italics added.) ‘A response requesting that an award be vacated or that an award be corrected shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of service of a signed copy of the award....’ (§ 1288.2, italics added.) In addition, a response must be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition in California.... (§§ 1290.6, 1290.4.)” (Eternity Investments, Inc. v. Brown (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 739 Eternity at p. 745, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 134 [italics added].)

Here, the arbitration award was served on November 9, 2022. Petitioner Shmuel Iscakis filed the his petition to vacate the arbitration award on March 8, 2023 – 119 days after service of the arbitration award. Iscakis thus filed his petition to vacate the arbitration award more than 100 days from service of the award, meaning that it is jurisdictionally untimely.

The Court further notes that even if the Court were not divested of jurisdiction, consideration of the merits of Petitioner Shmuel Iscakis’s petition would lead to the same result of denial of Petitioner Shmuel Iscakis’s petition to vacate the arbitration award.

With limited exceptions, arbitrators’ decisions are not generally reviewable for factual or legal errors, whether or not such errors appear on the face of the award and cause substantial injustice to the parties. (Sy First Family Ltd. Partnership v. Cheung (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1346 (Sy).) Thus, arbitrators do not exceed their authority’s scope because they erroneously decide a contested issue of fact or law. (Ibid.) Arbitrators may base their decisions upon broad principles of justice and equity unless specifically restricted by the agreement to follow certain legal rules. (Bonshire v Thompson (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 803, 809–810.)

In Sy, a party objected to confirmation of an arbitration award as being contrary to law. In reversing the trial court’s denial of the petition to confirm the arbitration award, The Court of Appeal rejected this ground as a proper basis for denying confirmation of the arbitration award. The Sy court reasoned that “ ‘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.' [Citation.]” (Sy First Family Ltd. Partnership, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at 1346 [quoting California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943-944 and citing Caro v. Smith (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 725, 735 [“Arbitrators do not exceed the scope of their authority because they erroneously decide a contested issue of fact or law; the parties' expectation of finality from a binding arbitration requires that 'judicial intervention in the arbitration process be minimized.' [Citation.]”].) Thus, the Sy Court concluded that “[e]ven assuming the arbitrators erred by granting relief under former Corporations Code section 15039, their decision was not subject to correction by the trial court.” (Sy, 70 Cal.App.4th at 1346.) Accordingly, the Sy Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the petition to confirm the arbitration award. (See also Kacha v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1023 [“Judicial review of an arbitration, or appraisal award, is circumscribed. . . . ‘Courts may not review either the merits of the controversy or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award.’ ” [citing Sy].)

In his petition, Shmuel Iscakis points to what he believes are errors of fact and errors of law on the part of the Arbitrator. Shmuel Iscakis argues that “[i]n total, the Arbitration Award includes approximately $42,220.00 in miscalculations and errors.” Pursuant to Sy and the cases cited therein, such miscalculations and errors are not a proper basis for denying confirmation of the arbitration award.

As to respondent The Three Builders, Inc., Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6 provides that “[a] response [to a petition to confirm an arbitration award] shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition … The time provided in this section for serving and filing a response may be extended by an agreement in writing between the parties to the court proceeding or, for good cause, by order of the court.” (CCP § 1290.6.) The Three Builders, Inc. dba California Roofing Installation & Repairs was personally served with Moises Bada’s petition to confirm the arbitration award on April 25, 2023. The Three Builders, Inc. dba California Roofing Installation & Repairs has failed to respond at all and is thus deemed to have admitted the allegations of the petition to confirm the arbitration award. (DeMello v. Souza, at p. 83, 111 Cal.Rptr. 274.)

In sum, Moises Bada’s petition to confirm the arbitration award against Shmuel Iscakis and The Three Builders, Inc. is GRANTED. Moises Bada is to file and serve a proposed judgment within 10 days. Shmuel Iscakis’s petition to vacate the arbitration award is DENIED.

The Court Clerk shall give notice to all parties.