Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 20SMCV00983, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20SMCV00983 Hearing Date: June 20, 2023 Dept: 207
Background
This interpleader action was brought by The Irvine Company,
LLC, (“The Irvine Company”) concerning the distribution of funds pursuant to
arbitration proceedings in prior action, Case No. SC126761. The parties to this
action stipulated to submit this dispute to arbitration pursuant to a joint
stipulation filed on July 7, 2022, which was signed and entered by the Court
that same day. Those arbitration proceedings have now concluded and have
resulted in two arbitration awards, one in favor of Defendant Stephanie Van de Motter (“Van de Motter”) and
against The Irvine Company, and another in favor of Van de Motter and against
Defendants Sally Tillotson and Herzog, Yuhas, Ehrlich & Ardell
(collectively with The Irvine Company, the “Responding Parties”). Van de Motter
has filed two separate petitions seeking to confirm these awards. The
Responding Parties have filed a joint opposition asking the Court to instead
dismiss those petitions as moot and contrary to the parties’ July 7, 2022,
stipulation.
Legal
Standard
A party
may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving
a petition no more than four years, but not less than 10 days, after the award
is served. (C.C.P. §§ 1288, 1288.4.) Any opposition or response to such a
petition must be filed and served “within 10 days after service of the
petition.” (C.C.P. § 1290.6.) This period is extended to 30 days if the
respondent was served out of state.
A petition to confirm an arbitration award must include the
substance of the agreement to arbitrate, the names of the arbitrators, and the
opinion of the arbitrator. (C.C.P. § 1285.4.) “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.) The general
rule is that a court will not review “the merits of the controversy, the
validity of the arbitrator’s reasoning, or the sufficiency of the evidence.” (Jordan
v. California Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 431.)
Code
Civ. Proc. § 1290.4 sets forth the requirements for proper service of a
petition to confirm an arbitration award. It states, in pertinent part:
(a)
A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the
hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be
served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of
such petition and notice.
…
(c)
If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service
shall be made and the person on whom service is to be made has previously
appeared in the proceeding or has previously been served in accordance with
subdivision (b) of this section, service shall be made in the manner provided
in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.
Analysis
Van de Motter argues the
opposition filed by the Responding Parties is untimely. As set forth above,
under Code Civ. Proc. § 1290.6, any response to these petitions had to be filed
and served within 10 days of service of the petitions. The petitions were
served on the Responding Parties on May 12, 2023. The Responding Parties’ joint
opposition was filed and served on May 31, 2023, more than 10 days after
service of the petitions even after extending that deadline by two court days
to account for Van de Motter’s electronic service of the petitions. The Court
agrees the joint opposition is untimely under section 1290.6, and it will be
disregarded by the Court. In the absence of any timely opposition, the Court
finds Van de Motter has complied with the procedural requirements set forth
above and properly served the parties with both petitions in compliance with
Code Civ. Proc. § 1290.4. For these reasons the Court GRANTS both petitions.
The same result would follow even
if the Court were to consider the merits of the Responding Parties’ joint
opposition. In that opposition, the Responding Parties ask the Court to dismiss
both petitions, arguing the petitions are moot because they have already paid
all money ordered by the arbitration awards. The Court of Appeal has expressly
rejected this exact argument:
Pacific argues
the trial court erred when it confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Gibson
because the amount awarded had already been paid. In essence, Pacific maintains
that only plaintiffs' awards may be confirmed and, then, only to the extent those
awards have not been satisfied. We disagree.
Code of Civil
Procedure section 1285 unequivocally states that “Any party to an arbitration in
which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm … the award.” Confirmation
is mandatory under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286, which provides, “the court
shall confirm the award as made … unless … it corrects the award and confirms it
as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” Furthermore, once
an award is confirmed, “judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.) Nothing in these sections limits the confirmation of arbitration
awards to successful plaintiffs who have not been paid. To the contrary, it is clear
that all arbitration awards, including defense awards which have been satisfied,
are subject to confirmation.
(Pacific Law Group: USA v. Gibson
(1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 577, 580.) The Responding Parties’ satisfaction of the
relevant arbitration awards does not preclude the Court from granting Van de
Motter’s petitions.
The Responding Parties also argue
the petitions should be dismissed because they violate the parties’ July 7,
2022, joint stipulation, which provided “Once [The Irvine Company] pays the
amounts as directed by Arbitrator McCoy, the parties will file a Full
Satisfaction of Judgment in the Underlying Action [SC126761] and a dismissal with
prejudice of the Interpleader Action [20SMCV00983]. The Full Satisfaction of
Judgment must be filed no later than two (2) weeks from the date of payment,
and the dismissal of the Interpleader Action no later than one week from the
date of the Full Satisfaction of Judgment.” (Opp. at 3-4 [brackets in
original].) While the stipulation provides for dismissal of this action, it
does not preclude Van de Motter from seeking to confirm the awards of the
arbitrator, and the confirmation of the awards would not prevent the parties
from seeking dismissal of this interpleader action as provided for in the
stipulation. This interpleader action was brought by The Irvine Company—one of
the Responding Parties—which could have sought dismissal of this action with
prejudice within the time period contemplated by the parties’ stipulation.
Having chosen not to do so, The Irvine Company cannot now use that decision as
a basis to dismiss Van de Motter’s petitions.
Conclusion
Defendant Stephanie
Van de Motter’s petitions to confirm arbitration awards are GRANTED.