Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCP00284, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCP00284    Hearing Date: December 17, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 12-17-24

Case # 24CHCP00284, Atlas Builders & Development, Inc. v. Pacheco, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Atlas Builders & Development, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Court order confirming $71,784.47 arbitration award and judgment following binding arbitration.

RULING: Arbitration award is confirmed and judgment is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On November 6, 2022, Atlas Builders & Development, Inc. (Atlas) and Michael E. Pacheco and Michelle Pacheco (the Pachecos) entered into a Contract under which Atlas would provide the Pachecos with architectural services.  On December 28, 2022, the parties executed a Change Order that substantially expanded the scope of Atlas’s work and set the grand total final cost to $156,120.00, which included Atlas receiving a profit of 18% plus 6% overhead plus 6% general conditions.  Atlas relied on the Change Order and purchased $43,682.87-worth of materials for the project.  Around March and April 2023, the Pachecos ceased communicating with Atlas, failed to go forward with the constructions, and failed to compensate Atlas for its costs expended and its lost profits. 

On December 22, 2023, Atlas filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), pursuant to the arbitration provision in the original Contract.  Atlas filed and served its evidentiary brief on the Pachecos, but the Pachecos never filed or served a response, and did not attend the arbitration. 

On July 3, 2024, the Arbitrator issued an arbitration award.  The Arbitrator found that the Pachecos materially breached the Contract and awarded Atlas $71,784.47: $43,682.87 in out-of pocket costs and expenses for materials purchased plus $28,101.60 in lost profit.  The Arbitrator also ordered the Pachecos to pay $925.00 in AAA administrative fees and $1,750.00 for the Arbitrator’s compensation. 

On September 30, 2024, Atlas filed this petition to confirm the arbitration award and judgment.  Attached to the petition is the Contract, Arbitration Provision, and the Arbitration Award.  The Pachecos do not oppose the petition.

ANALYSIS

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.)  The petition must state the substance, or attach copies of the arbitration agreement, the award, and any written opinion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.)  The petitioner must serve the petition between 10 days and 4 years from the date the award was served on the petitioner.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.)  The other party may respond to the petition.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.2.) 

“If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, 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.)  The court may not vacate or correct an award unless a petition or response requesting that the award be vacated or corrected has been duly served and filed.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1286.4 & 1286.8.)  “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. [Citation.]”  (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.)  “If an award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.) 

The court may not 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.]”  (Roehl v. Ritchie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 338, 347; Luster v. Collins (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1344.)     

Timeliness of the Petition, Service, and Notice of Hearing

The petition must state the substance, or attach copies of the arbitration agreement, the award, and any written opinion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.)  The petitioner must serve the petition between 10 days and 4 years from the date the award was served on the petitioner.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.)  The petitioner must serve the petition and notice of the hearing on the respondent “in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice” or “[i]f the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made . . . [s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (a), (b).)¿¿ 

The award was made on July 3, 2024 and served on Atlas on July 3, 2024.  Atlas filed the notice of hearing on August 22, 2024 and the petition on September 30, 2024.  Atlas personally served the petition on Michael Pacheo on November 12, 2024 and Michelle Pacheco on November 14, 2024, more than 10 days after July 3, 2024, but less than 4 years before July 1, 2028. Atlas filed proofs of service on November 19, 2024. 

The petition is timely and properly served.

Confirmation of Arbitration Award

An arbitration award is not directly enforceable until it is confirmed by a court and judgment is entered.¿ (Code Civ. Proc.,  § 1287.6; Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.)  On the merits, the court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.)  The petition must:¿ 

(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 the 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.) 

Atlas’s petition includes copies of the Contract, the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration award and opinion.  (Petition to Confirm, Exhs. 4(b), 4(c), and 8(c).)  The petition includes the arbitrator’s name: Leslie Steven Marks. 

The Court may therefore reach the merits of Atlas’s petition.  (See Puccinelli v. Nestor (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 48, 50.)

The Pachecos do not oppose this petition.

Accordingly, the Court finds no grounds for denying the petition to confirm the arbitration award. 

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Atlas Builders & Development, Inc.’s petition and confirms the arbitration award of $71,784.47. 

ORDER

Michael E. Pacheco and Michelle Pacheco are ordered to remit payment to Atlas within 30 days of the date of this order.