Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCP01177, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from Petitioner’s claim for entitlement to explosive detail bonus pay that was withheld from him by Respondent. The matter was submitted to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration process provided in the effective Memorandum of Understanding between Respondent and the Professional Peace Officers Association (“PPOA”), Petitioner’s designated bargaining unit labor representative.

The underlying arbitration was conducted on September 15, 2022 and on December 8, 2022. The arbitration concluded with a final award (the “Award”) issued on May 15, 2023, which stated the following:

1. The PPOA proved by a preponderance of evidence that Sgt. Mario Castaneda is entitled to Explosive Detail Bonus Pay under Article 7, Section 3 of the MOU.

2. Sgt. Mario Castaneda is awarded Explosive Detail Bonus Pay from May 11, 2018 to January 1, 2022, less the one (1) year of authorized injury leave from official duty: May 4, 2020 to May 16, 2021.

3. The PPOA’s formal grievance on behalf of Sgt. Mario Castaneda is hereby sustained.

Petitioner now comes before the Court seeking to confirm the Award by filing the instant Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”).

“A petition under this title shall be heard in a summary way in the manner and upon the notice provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except that not less than 10 days’ notice of the date set for the hearing on the petition shall be given.” (CCP, § 1290.2.) “A petition to confirm an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. A petition to vacate an award or to correct an award shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.” (CCP, § 1288.)

CCP section 1290.4(a) requires the Petition and Notice of Hearing to be served on Respondent “in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice” or “[i]f the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made . . . [s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (CCP § 1290.4(a), (b).)

Here, the Petition was filed on April 12, 2024, was served on Respondent on April 15, 2024, and Respondent returned an acknowledgment of receipt on April 17, 2024. (Exhibit E to Notice of Hearing: Proof of Service of Summons; Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt). A Notice of Hearing was filed on October 18, 2024 along with a proof of service indicating that service of the notice of hearing was made upon Respondent by electronic service on the same day, which is more than the required 10 days’ notice prior to the hearing. (CCP, § 1290.2.)

Thus, Respondent’s objection to the timeliness of the notice of hearing is unfounded. The Court finds that the filing and service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing was timely.

An arbitration award is not directly enforceable until it is confirmed by a court and judgment is entered. (CCP § 1287.6; Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.) A party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition at least 10 days, but no more than four years after the award is served. (CCP, §§ 1288, 1288.4.)

On the merits, the court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (CCP § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.) CCP section 1285.4 states a petition under this chapter shall:

a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement.

c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.

Here, first, the Petition does attach as Attachment 4(c) the contract between the parties which includes an arbitration provision. The agreement is signed by the PPOA, Petitioner’s designated bargaining agent, and Respondent. Second, the Petition states that Claude D. Ames was the arbitrator for this matter. Third, the Petition attaches as Exhibit 8(c) the written award and opinion of the arbitrator.

Where, as here, the petition to confirm an arbitration award is timely filed, complies with the procedural requirements of CCP section 1285.4, and more than 100 days have passed since service of the award without the filing of a response or petition to vacate or correct the award, the Court shall confirm the award. (CCP, § 1286 (“If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.”); Eternity Investments, Inc. v. Brown (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 739, 746 (“Under the plain language of the CAA, the trial court had no alternative but to confirm the award as made.”).)

Respondent contends, however, that the Award issued on May 15, 2023 should not be confirmed since, as worded, the Award does not expressly provide for any interest payment.

Petitioner contends, that on September 29, 2023, Respondent provided Petitioner with the bonus backpay in the amount of $66,841.04. Respondent, however, failed to provide interest on this bonus backpay payment despite Petitioner’s formal grievance requesting back payment with interest” and the Award’s explicit language indicating that the “…formal grievance on behalf of Sgt. Mario Castaneda is hereby sustained.” Upon Respondent’s assertion that the Award did not provide interest payment, counsel for Petitioner reached out to the arbitrator to seek clarification on whether he intended to include interest payments in the Award. (Exh. A to Notice of Hearing.) Subsequently, on October 23, 2023, the Arbitrator communicated to all parties that Petitioner’s “…request seeking clarification of Sgt. Castaneda’s entitlement to interest on his Explosive Detail Bonus back pay is not a correction of the Arbitrator’s award,” and that, “The Arbitrator’s intent remains to include interest in Sgt. Castaneda’s Explosive Detail Bonus payment for his unjust denial.” (Id.)

Accordingly, in light of the clarification provided by the arbitrator, the Award is confirmed, including interest, as stated by the Arbitrator. The fact that Respondent has already paid the bonus backpay does not bar confirmation of the Award. The losing party cannot prevent entry of judgment by paying whatever amount has been awarded. (Pacific Law Group: USA v. Gibson (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 577, 580 [“all arbitration awards, including defense awards which have been satisfied, are subject to confirmation”].)

Additionally, Petitioner requests prejudgment interest, at the rate of 7% per year. The applicable statutory rate for prejudgment interest against a state or local government entity is 7% as a matter of law. (Cal. Const. art. XV, § 1; Gov. Code § 970.1.)

In Britz, Inc. v. Alfa–Laval Food & Dairy Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Britz), the court held that a successful party to arbitration is entitled to post-award, pre-judgment interest under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a). The Britz court held that a successful party to an arbitration is entitled to “recover damages certain” within the meaning of section 3287, subdivision (a) on the date the arbitrator renders his award. (Id. at p. 1106.) The court noted that “[t]he arbitration award itself result[s] in a new and fixed liability [citation]. Regardless of the individual elements that comprised that liability, respondents were entitled to payment of the fixed sum upon issuance of the award. [¶].... Although the interest was pre-‘judicial judgment,’ it was post-‘contractual judgment.’ Any result that denied respondents this post-award interest would punish them for using arbitration instead of the court system to resolve their dispute with appellants.” (Id. at p. 1107.)

Britz controls this case. The court erred when it failed to award post-award, pre-judgment interest under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a). (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 27.)

Petitioner has calculated the interest owed as accruing at the approximate rates of $4,678.87 per year; $389.91 per month; and $12.82 per day. Petitioner has calculated the relevant prejudgment interest to be $6,938.19 based on the daily rate of approximately $12.82 per day from May 15, 2023 (date of Award) through November 5, 2024 (date of hearing on Petition). (Declaration of Christopher Morse.) Petitioner is entitled to prejudgment interest as calculated.

CCP Section 1293.2 provides that: “The court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title…” “Unless the arbitrator’s award or the parties’ arbitration agreement negates the enforceability of section 1293.2, a court must award costs incurred in postarbitration judicial proceedings to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award.” (Storm v. Standard Fire Ins. Co. (2020) 52 Cal. App. 5th 636, 648, citing Carole Ring & Associates v. Nicastro (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 253, 260–261; Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Woodman Investment Group (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 508, 513 [award of costs pursuant to § 1293.2 is “mandatory”].)

Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to post-arbitration costs. Counsel for petitioner declares that in this case, costs of suit are approximately $576.54. (Declaration of Christopher Morse.)

“Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.” (CCP, § 1021.)

Here, Petitioner has not stated sufficient basis for entitlement to attorneys’ fees. The Court declines to award attorneys’ fees as a sanction because Petitioner has not met the statutory requirements to receive attorneys’ fees as a sanction. (CCP, § 128.5(f)(1)(A).) The request is also improper under CCP section 1021.5 as this action does not enforce an important right affecting the public interest.

Based on all the foregoing, the Petition is GRANTED in part. Judgment shall be entered in the principal sum of $14,366.05, together with prejudgment interest of $6,938.19, plus costs of suit of $576.54, for a total judgment of $21,880.78.

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