Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCP00261, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCP00261    Hearing Date: September 16, 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.

The hearing on Petitioner’s motion was previously continued to allow Petitioner to demonstrate the arbitration award was properly served on all parties by the arbitrator and to submit additional evidence in support of her request for attorney’s fees. Petitioner has timely filed those additional materials.

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. Petition has also submitted proofs of service showing the arbitrator has served a copy of the award on Respondents by certified mail as required by Code Civ. Proc. § 1283.6.

Petitioner also seeks an award of $8,263.50 in attorney’s fees and $800.52 in costs incurred in bringing this Petition under Labor Code § 1194. Section 1194(a) provides “Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.” “[S]ection 1194 is a one-way fee-shifting statute, authorizing an award of attorney’s fees only to employees who prevail on their minimum wage or overtime claims.” (Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, 1251.)

While not stated directly, Petitioner appears to be arguing these proceedings to confirm the arbitration award should be considered a “civil action” to recover her minimum wage or overtime compensation under section 1194. The Court in Villinger/Nicholls Development Co. v. Meleyco (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 321 considered and rejected a similar argument. There the prevailing party in arbitration proceedings sought to recover its legal fees in obtaining confirmation pursuant to Civil Code § 3176, which provides in part: “In any action against an owner or construction lender to enforce payment of a claim stated in a bonded stop notice, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect from the party held liable by the court for payment of the claim, reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs and in addition to any liability for damages.” (Id. at 326.) The trial court denied the request for attorney’s fees and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the petition to confirm the arbitration award was not an “action” as the term is used in Civil Code § 3176 or Code Civ. Proc. § 22, but was instead a “special proceeding” under Code Civ. Proc. § 23. (Id. at 327.) The Court further reasoned:

The statutes governing arbitration do not require an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party. Rather, each party bears his own fees unless the parties agree otherwise. Code of Civil Procedure section 1284.2 provides: “Unless the arbitration agreement otherwise provides or the parties to the arbitration otherwise agree, each party to the arbitration shall pay his pro rata share of expenses and fees of the neutral arbitrator . . . not including counsel fees . . . or other expenses incurred by a party for his own benefit.” Absent evidence of the Legislature's intent to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in an arbitration or special proceeding to confirm the arbitration award arising from the same claim as stated in a bonded stop notice, we decline to interpret "action" as used in Civil Code section 3176 broadly to include special proceedings.

For the same reasons, the Court declines to interpret “action” as used in Labor Code § 1194(a) broadly to include special proceedings to confirm an arbitration award. Petitioner has provided no other basis for an award of her attorney’s fees in bringing this Petition, and accordingly her request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

As to Petitioner’s request for costs, Code Civ. Proc. section 1293.2 provides, “The court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title [governing arbitration] as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) … of this code.” “The judicial proceedings covered by this provision include petitions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award.” (Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Woodman Investment Group (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 508, 513.) Code Civ. Proc. section 1032(b), part of chapter 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” Section 1033.5 sets out a list of recoverable costs. Petitioner here seeks to recover $800.52 in filing fees and costs for service of process, which are permitted costs under Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(1) and (a)(4). The Court thus grants Petitioner’s request for an award of $800.52 in costs incurred in bringing this Petition.

Conclusion

The Petition to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED. Petitioner is awarded $800.52 in costs incurred in bringing this Petition. Petitioner’s request for an award of attorney’s fees is DENIED.