Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 21SMCV01638, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21SMCV01638 Hearing Date: February 17, 2023 Dept: 207
Background
This case involves the alleged breach of a lawyer-client
agreement. Petitioner Atefeh Dibael (“Petitioner”) alleges attorney Respondent
Romina Ben-Elyaho (“Respondent”) failed to appear for Petitioner’s trial.
Petitioner also alleges paying the Respondent a $12,000 retainer and paying
$18,000 on monthly billing without Respondent providing work on Petitioner’s
divorce case. On January 28, 2022, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to
compel arbitration and stayed this action pending completion of the
arbitration.
The parties arbitrated Petitioner’s claims before Stephen H.
Marcus. On September 23, 2022, the arbitrator issued an award ordering Respondent
to pay Petitioner $3,520 and otherwise finding the parties were to bear their
equal share of the costs of arbitration. Respondent now petitions the Court to
confirm the arbitrator’s award. Respondent’s petition is unopposed.
Legal Standard
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.
Code
Civ. Proc. § 1283.6 provides: “The neutral arbitrator shall serve
a signed copy of the award on each party to the arbitration personally or by registered
or certified mail or as provided in the agreement.”¿(Emphasis added.) In addition,
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.)
Analysis
The Court finds Respondent has complied with the procedures
of Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.4 by including the names of the arbitrators and a
copy of the arbitrators’ opinion in the petition. The Court also finds the
petition was timely brought under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1288, 1288.4 and properly
served under Code
Civ. Proc. § 1290.4. Respondent asks the Court to confirm the arbitrator’s award
of $3,520 in Petitioner’s favor, along with the associated findings made in the
arbitrator’s award. (Ex. 1 to Petition.) Petitioner does not oppose
Respondent’s request or otherwise offer any grounds by which the Court could
correct, vacate, or otherwise dismiss Respondent’s petition. Respondent’s
petition to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED.
Conclusion
Respondent Romina Ben-Elyaho’s petition to confirm the
arbitration award is GRANTED.