Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 20STCV39324, Date: 2024-03-21 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.

On October 14, 2020, Plaintiff David Hokanson (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive for (1) Violation of Labor Code Section 6310; (2) Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5; and (3) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.

On August 18, 2021, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

On February 6, 2024, Defendant filed this instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. The opposition was due on March 8, 2024. As of March 18, 2024, no opposition has been filed.

“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.) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.) (Italics added.)

“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.) “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 we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator’s legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award’s face.” (EHM Productions, supra, at p. 1063-64.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1290.4, subdivision (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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1290.4, subd. (a).)

But “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…Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4(b)(1).)

Here, Defendant did not file a Notice of Hearing with the Petition. Furthermore, Defendant did not file any proof of service reflecting this Petition was served on Plaintiff. Therefore, it is unclear whether Plaintiff had notice of this Petition and hearing.

Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6, “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.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.6.)

Here, the Petition states that the arbitration hearing was conducted on February 27 and February 28, 2023. (Cripps Decl., ¶ 8.) Furthermore, the Petition indicates the Final Award by the Arbitrator was issued on July 14, 2023. (Id. ¶ 10, Ex. C.) However, the Final Award of the Arbitrator submitted does not reflect when the Arbitrator served a signed copy of the award on each party in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1283.6. Therefore, it unclear when service of the arbitration award was done and whether it complies with the statutory requirements.

Here, the Petition sets forth the substance of the agreement to arbitrate. (Petition ¶¶ 2-3.) Moreover, the Petition states that Michael R. Diliberto was the arbitrator for this matter. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Additionally, a copy of the arbitration award and written opinion of Michael R. Diliberto is attached to the declaration in support of this instant Petition. . (Cripps Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. C.) Lastly, since the Petition is unopposed, Hokanson has not established any ground for vacating the arbitration award. As such, the Petition is in compliance with the filing requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4.

The Court finds that the Petition and Arbitration Award do not comply with the service requirements.

Therefore, Defendant Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED to April 22, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. to allow Defendant time to file proof of service of the Petition, Notice of Hearing, and Arbitration Award and to otherwise comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1283.6 and 1290.4.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court