Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00270, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00270    Hearing Date: July 18, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      July 18, 2024                          TRIAL DATE:  No date set.

CASE:                         FRANCESCO CAMELI, an individual, v. FAKK LLC, a limited liability company; ALEXANDRE CAILLAT, an individual; KIAN FARIN, an individual, JAMIE MITCHELL, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00270

MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY:              Petitioner Francesco Cameli

RESPONDING PARTY:     None

SERVICE:                             Filed June 25, 2024

OPPOSITION:                      None

REPLY:                                  None

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Petitioner requests the Court confirm the arbitration award.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of complaints involving the operation of FAKK LLC, doing business as Zen Drive Co., (“FAKK”). Plaintiff alleges that he, along with Alexandre Caillat (“Caillat”), Karim Hamza (“Hamza”), and Kian Farin (“Farin”) founded FAKK to set up a shop to provide diving equipment, lessons, and merchandise. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jamie Mitchell (“Mitchell”) was added as a member of FAKK. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly conducted business by failing to properly authorize and inspect breathing gas cylinders and improperly storing cylinders.

            Plaintiff alleges that when he raised these concerns, Hamza. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants acted to improperly exclude him from FAKK. Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 10, 2022, alleging nine causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) fiduciary duty of care, (3) accounting, (4) constructive trust, (5) unfair competition and unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., (6) violation of California Corporations Code section 17704.10 et seq. (7) civil assault, (8) defamation, and (9) declaratory relief.

TENTATIVE RULING

            The motion to confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) “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. (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators. (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made…unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) Any response to the petition is required to be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.)

The Court finds that Petitioner has established that the procedural requirements have been met. There being no response, the Court finds that the arbitration award is proper to confirm. “If [an] award is confirmed, judgment must be entered in conformity therewith.” (Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.)

CONCLUSION

            The motion to confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   July 18, 2024                         ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court