Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

 

LG H&H CO., LTD.,

Petitioner; 

vs. 

SINSIL KIM, et al.,  

Respondents. Case No: 23STCP03903

April 8, 2024

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD FILED BY PETITIONER LG H&H CO., LTD.

 

The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award filed by Petitioner LG H&H Co., LTD is GRANTED.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

The case is closed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

This is a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. The Petition alleges that the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate on April 20, 2022. (Petition at p. 2.) An arbitration hearing was held pursuant to this agreement in August and September 2023. (Id.) A neutral arbitrator, Thomas Heck, issued a final award on September 5, 2023 in favor of Petitioner, awarding Petitioner $2,331,015.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On October 20, 2023, Petitioner LG H&H Co., Ltd. filed its petition to confirm arbitration award against Respondents Insil and Sunna Kim.

On April 8, 2024, Respondents filed an opposition stating they did not oppose the petition to confirm arbitration award.

DISCUSSION 

Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court for confirmation of the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) Upon service and filing of a petition to confirm arbitration award, the court shall confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (Id., § 1286.) The contents of a petition to confirm an arbitration award shall set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate, the names of the arbitrators, and shall set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) Where the petition is served but no response is served and filed, the allegations in the petition are deemed admitted.  (CCP § 1290; Taheri Law Group, A.P.C. v. Sorokurs (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 956, 962.)    

Every presumption is in favor of the arbitration award. (See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United Rubber Workers of America (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 444, 449.) CCP section 1286.2 provides that “the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following: (1) [t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.” (CCP § 1286.2(a).) The defendant moving for vacation of an arbitration award due to corruption, fraud, or other undue means must demonstrate a nexus between the award and the alleged undue means used to attain it. (See Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 833-34.) An objection to the granting of a motion to confirm an award is equivalent to a motion to vacate. (See Thriftimart, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 421, 425-26.) 

Here, the petition was served on Respondents via substituted service and personal service on January 23, 2024. The agreement to arbitrate is attached as Attachment 4.b. The arbitrator’s award is attached as Attachment 8.c. Petitioner has fulfilled the procedural requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4. 

Accordingly, the Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award is granted. 

DATED: April 8, 2024 

________________________________ 

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court