Judge Helen Zukin, Case 22SMCP00261 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCP00261, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCP00261 Hearing Date: July 27, 2022 Dept: 207

Background

On June 10, 2022, Petitioner Kamila Brill (“Petitioner”) filed the instant petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Respondent BDR, Inc. and Strategic Holding Group, Inc. (collectively “Respondents”).

This case arises out of a fee dispute between the parties arising from Petitioner’s employment with Respondents. Petitioner alleges Respondents failed to pay her for all hours worked and failed to provide her with meal and rest breaks. Pursuant to a Mutual Arbitration Agreement, Petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings with the American Arbitration Association to collect for unpaid wages and other damages. After initially participating in the arbitration proceedings, Respondents did not appear for the final arbitration hearing, and on May 25, 2022, arbitrator Sara Adler issued an award in favor of Petitioner in the amount of $564,217.39.

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 a copy of the agreement to arbitrate, the name of the arbitrator, and a copy of the arbitrator’s opinion in the Petition. (Petition, Attachments 4(b) and 8(c).) The Court also finds the Petition was timely brought under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1288, 1288.4. As to service of the Petition, the Agreement does not provide for the manner of service and thus 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 proofs of personal service on Respondents on June 22, 2022.

However, the Petition does not establish the arbitrator served a copy of the award on Respondents by certified mail as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 1283.6.

Further, the Petition contains a request for attorney’s fees, but Petitioner has not provided the Court with any basis for such an award, and has not provided a declaration of counsel or other evidence demonstrating the amount of the fees incurred or sought.

Conclusion

The Petition to confirm the arbitration award is continued to September 16, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. in this department to allow Petitioner to submit evidence showing proper service of the arbitration award on Respondents by the arbitrator, and, to the extent Petitioner seeks to recover attorney’s fees incurred in bringing the Petition, to provide a basis for such an award and evidence demonstrating the amount of such fees to be awarded.