Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 19BBCV00152, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19BBCV00152    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiffs move to vacate the final award in JAMS arbitration, Case Reference Number 1220062840 on the ground of arbitrator’s bias, fraud, undue means, prejudice in issuing said final awards against Respondents. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that the amount of the award was not calculated correctly, or a property was not described correctly as well as the arbitrator exceeded his/her authority. (Petition, pg. 3.)

CASE HISTORY:

Maggy Entertainment, LLC and Magda Rasoul (“Rasoul”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint against Phillip B. Goldfine (Goldfine), Bravo Hotel, Inc., Hollywood Media Bridge, LLC, Industry Releasing, Inc., and Does 1 to 100 (“Defendants”) on February 19, 2019, alleging six causes of action sounding in: (1) Fraud, (2) Conversion, (3) Recission, (4) Breach of Written Contract, (5) Intentional Interference with Contract, and (6) Accounting.

On May 24, 2019, the Court issued an order compelling Plaintiffs to arbitrate its claims against Defendants.  The arbitration hearing was conducted on December 20, 21, and 22, 2021 before the Honorable Candace D. Cooper, (Ret.) with an interim award issued on March 28, 2022, in favor of all Defendants, and a Supplemental Award on July 25, 2022, awarding Defendants attorneys’ fees and costs, which together, constitutes the complete and final award in the arbitration.  The Court confirmed the arbitration award on September 16, 2022, and a judgment was signed on October 4, 2022.

The Court received the instant Petition filed by Plaintiffs on November 1, 2022. The response was filed by Defendants on November 23, 2022. A reply was not filed.

ANALYSIS:

C.C.P. §1286.2(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “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 … (3) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.”

C.C.P. §1288 states, “A petition to vacate an award or to correct 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.”

Pursuant to C.C.P. §1290.6, “a response [to a Motion to Confirm an Arbitration Award] shall be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition except that if the petition is served in the manner provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1290.4, the response shall be served and filed within 30 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.”

Vacating an award may be requested from the court by way of a response filed to a petition to confirm the award; however, the petition to vacate must be served and filed within 100 days after the service of the award on the petitioner (CCP§ 1288; Archuleta v. Grand Lodge etc. of Machinists (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 202). 

The only exception to the 100-day strict jurisdictional rule is when a 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 (CCP § 1290.6)  In Rivera v. Shivers, the Court found that the party’s response to the petition to confirm was not filed and served within 10 days of the petition. (Rivera v. Shivers (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 82, 93,94.) The Court held that the response was not “duly served and filed” and thus the trial court had no authority to hear the petition. (Rivera v. Shivers, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th 82, 93, citing De Mello v. Souza (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 79, 83, Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. v. Bernard (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 60, 66.))

The Court in Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key similarly asserted that “a request to vacate an arbitration award may be included in a party's response to a petition to confirm. (CCP§ 1285.2.) …however, such a request is also subject to the 100-day rule…under section 1288.2, “[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.” (Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 307, 316.) The Law Finance Group, LLC Court found that “when a petition to confirm an arbitration award is filed, a response requesting that the award be vacated must be filed within 10 days of the petition (plus any extensions), and in any event no later than 100 days after service of the award... a response that fails to comply with either deadline is untimely.” (Id.)           

            In the instant action, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Enter Judgement Thereon was filed on August 16, 2022.  The proof of service for the petition was executed on August 16, 2022. The Judgement confirming the award on September 16, 2022, was filed on October 4, 2022. However, the Petition for the motion to vacate was filed on November 1, 2022.  The time deadline to vacate an arbitration is one that affects the Court’s jurisdiction. (Id.) 

Even if the Court were inclined to do so (which it does not make any such representation), in this instance, the untimely Petition to Vacate results in the Court lacking jurisdiction to provide the requested relief.  As such, the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the Petition to Vacate is dismissed. 

The Court dismisses the Petition.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiffs Maggy Entertainment and Magda Rasoul’s Petition to Vacate or Correct Arbitration Award came on regularly for hearing on December 9, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE PETITION IS DISMISSED.

DATE:  December 9, 2022                           _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles