Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00009739-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00009739-CU-BC-CTL SHUSTAK REYNOLDS & PARTNERS PC VS BHAKTA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is granted. Defendants' Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award is denied.

The arbitration award ('Award') at issue arises from the Arbitrator's decision on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment of the claims asserted in its complaint. The Award specifically states that it neither 'addresses nor affects Respondents' Crossclaims which will continue before this Arbitrator . . ., are separate and independent of the Shustak Firm's primary claims . . . and will be the subject of a separate Award following a hearing on those Crossclaims.' (ROA 63, Ex. A, pg. 2.) Additionally, the Award states that the Arbitrator 'review[ed] all papers submitted in support of, and in opposition to, the Shustak Firm's Motion for Summary Judgment,' 'examined the allegations and submissions' and heard oral argument.

The Arbitrator relied on the retained agreement, invoices and email communications to conclude Plaintiff had shown 'the parties entered into the Agreement; that the Shustak Finn performed its obligations under the Agreement, or that non-performance was excused; that the Respondents failed to fulfill one or more obligations of that Agreement; and resulting damages.' (Id., pgs. 5-6.) '[T]he merits of a controversy that has been submitted to arbitration are not subject to judicial review.

This means that we may not review the validity of the arbitrator's reasoning, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award, or any errors of fact or law that may be included in the award.' (Harris v. Sandro (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1313.) 'Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 sets forth a list of circumstances under which we may vacate an arbitrator's award . . . . Unless one of the enumerated grounds exists, a court may not vacate an award even if it contains a legal or factual error on its face which results in substantial injustice. [Citation.] An arbitrator does not exceed his or her powers by making a legal or factual error or by giving erroneous reasons for an award.' (Id. (quotation marks omitted).) Defendants' argument that the Arbitrator could not grant summary judgment only as to Plaintiff's Complaint is unpersuasive. 'A complaint and a cross-complaint are, for most purposes, treated as independent actions. [Citation.] Procedurally, a cross-complaint is a separate pleading and represents a separate cause of action from that which may be stated in the complaint. [Citation.] Where there are both a complaint and a cross-complaint there are actually two separate actions pending and the issues joined on the cross-complaint are completely severable from the issues under the original complaint and answer. [Citation.]' (Security Pacific National Bank v. Adamo (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 492, 496 (quotation marks omitted).) This is true even where the causes of action alleged in the cross-complaint 'could as well have been pleaded as affirmative defenses' to the complaint. (Id. at 497.) Therefore, the Arbitrator's decision to separate the two pleadings is not legally erroneous and, even if it was, does not rise to the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3107332  8 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SHUSTAK REYNOLDS & PARTNERS PC VS BHAKTA [IMAGED]  37-2022-00009739-CU-BC-CTL level of misconduct that would substantially prejudice Defendants.

Defendants' arguments that the Arbitrator implicitly ruled on their cross-claims and failed to consider the cross-claim and Defendant Bhakta's declaration are similarly unavailing. Although Plaintiff's damages are unpaid attorney's fees, it has brought a claim for breach of contract, not a motion for attorney's fees.

As such, the reasonableness and/or quality of the provided legal services is not a necessary factual consideration in adjudicating Plaintiff's claim. These arguments, presented by the cross-claims, can-and will-be independently adjudicated by the Arbitrator at a later time. The merits of those claims was not at issue, and therefore was not decided, by Plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that the Arbitrator failed to consider any evidence submitted to him or that he was biased against Defendants.

Plaintiff is directed to submit a new proposed order reflecting the correct pre-judgment interest amount.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3107332  8