Judge Helen Zukin, Case 22SMCP00255 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCP00255, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCP00255 Hearing Date: August 5, 2022 Dept: 207

Background

On June 10, 2022, Petitioner Chad D. Nardiello (“Petitioner”) filed the instant petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Respondent Melanie D. Mitchem (“Respondent”).

This case arises out of a fee dispute between the parties arising from Petitioner’s legal representation of Respondent in connection with a federal criminal matter. The fee arbitration was held through the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Attorney Client Mediation and Arbitration Services program. Respondent and Petitioner appeared at the arbitration hearing via Zoom videoconference. On January 19, 2022, the arbitration panel issued an award in favor of Petitioner in the amount of $113,156.89, plus interest.

Petitioner brings this petition to confirm the arbitration award. The Petition is unopposed.

Standard for Confirmation of Arbitration Award

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.

(b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision: ¶ (1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.

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 Petitioner 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. Petitioner also indicates the arbitration was pursuant to the mandatory fee arbitration provisions of Business and Professions Code §§ 6200-6206 and not pursuant to a separate arbitration agreement between the parties. (Petition, Attachment 6(c).) The Court also finds the Petition was timely brought under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1288, 1288.4. As to service of the Petition, under Code Civ. Proc. § 1290.4(b) the Petition and notice of the hearing must be served on Respondents in the manner provided for service of summons. Petitioner has satisfied this requirement by filing a proof of service showing Respondent was personally served on June 21, 2022.

However, the Petition does not establish the arbitrators served a copy of the award on Respondent by registered or certified mail as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 1283.6, rather, it appears the award was served by the arbitrators by regular first-class mail on February 15, 2022. However, this technical irregularity does not prevent the Court from confirming the award. (Murry v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Co. (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 796, 799-800 [finding technical defect in service of arbitration award did not prevent confirmation of award as “a defect in service of the award does not come within the statutory grounds upon which the court in a confirmation proceeding can and should vacate this award” and respondent had waived the argument by not filing any response or opposition to petition for confirmation].)

In addition to the award of $113,156.89, the arbitrators found Petitioner is entitled to “interest in the amount of the prevailing legal rate per annum from the 30th day after the date of service of this award.” (Award at 9.) The award was served on February 15, 2022, and thus Petitioner is entitled to interest on the award beginning thirty days later, on March 17, 2022. Petitioner has properly calculated this interest at $4,371. (Jen Decl. at ¶7.)

Petitioner also seeks to recover $495 in costs and $827.25 in attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this Petition. The Court finds Petitioner has not set forth any basis for the award of the requested fees and costs. Petitioner has submitted a declaration from counsel stating Petitioner “is entitled to the recovery of such costs, pursuant to the underlying agreement between the parties, and as set forth by the arbitration award.” (Jan Decl. at ¶8.) However, the arbitration award is silent as to Petitioner’s recovery of costs for confirming the award and Petitioner has not provided the Court with a copy of the “underlying agreement” between the parties which Petitioner is relying on. The declaration makes no reference to any basis for an award of attorney’s fees. (Jan Decl. at ¶8.)

Conclusion

The Petition to confirm the arbitration award is continued to ______________ to allow Petitioner to submit evidence showing he is entitled to recover his attorney’s fees and costs in bringing the Petition.