Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 19STCV25536, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 19STCV25536    Hearing Date: September 12, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

            MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs/Petitioners Charles P. LaBella (“LaBella”) and LaBella Worldwide, Inc. (“LWI”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Petitioners”)

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served within ten days of the service of the moving papers under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1290.6.

BACKGROUND

            On July 22, 2019, Petitioners filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) unpaid wages (Labor Code section 218); (2) unpaid minimum wages (Labor Code sections 1194, 1194.2, and 1197); (3) unreimbursed business expenses and losses (Labor Code section 2802); (4) breach of contract; and (5) fraud.  On June 24, 2020, the Court granted Respondents’ motion to compel arbitration and ordered that Petitioners’ claims be resolved in arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement in an employment contract.

On October 24, 2022, Petitioners filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award issued by the arbitrator who presided over their claims (the “First Petition”).  On February 16, 2023, after considering the First Petition and Respondents’ corresponding petition to vacate the arbitration award, the Court remanded the matter to arbitration so that the arbitrator could clarify the allocation of the punitive damages award. 

On August 9, 2023, Petitioners filed a petition to confirm arbitration award (the “Petition”) to confirm the amended award issued by the arbitrator on remand.

DISCUSSION

Under CCP section 1285, any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.  (CCP § 1285.)  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.)  Under CCP section 1286.2, the court may vacate the award only under very limited circumstances.  (Id.)  Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator’s reasoning, nor may a reviewing court correct or review an award because of an arbitrator’s legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award’s face.  (Id. at 1063-64.)  It is the general rule that, with narrow exceptions, an arbitrator's decision cannot be reviewed for errors of fact or law.  (Id. at 1063.) 

When the party petitions the court to confirm the award before the expiration of the 100-day period, respondent may seek vacation or correction of the award by way of response only if he serves and files his response within 10 days after the service of the petition pursuant to CCP section 1290.6.  (Rivera v. Shivers (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 82, 93.)  Unless the response is duly served and filed, under CCP section 1290, the allegations of the petition are deemed to be admitted by the other side.  (Id.) 

            The amended award was issued on April 7, 2023.  (See Declaration of Jonathon Kaplan (“Kaplan Decl.”) ¶¶ 8-9, Exhibit D.)             

            As it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Petition.  (See Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. v. Bernard (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 60, 64.)  The Court awards Petitioners attorney’s fees in the reasonable amount of $3,061.65, which represents six hours preparing the Petition at an hourly rate of $500 per hour and $61.65 in filing fees.  (Kaplan Decl. ¶ 10; Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1034.) 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

         Dated this 12th day of September 2023