Judge John C. Gastelum, Case 20-01138619 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 20-01138619, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

(1) Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (2) CMC/Status Conference

Tentative Ruling: (1) Plaintiff YOON petitions to have the Final Arbitration Award confirmed, and to have judgment entered in conformity therewith.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1285

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 of Civil Procedure §1285.4

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.

Code of Civil Procedure §1287.4

If an award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith. The judgment so entered has the same force and effect as, and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action of the same jurisdictional classification; and it may be enforced like any other judgment of the court in which it is entered, in an action of the same jurisdictional classification.

Here, Plaintiff was the prevailing party in the arbitration and seeks to confirm the arbitration award. Although Defendants agree Plaintiff prevailed, they argue “Plaintiff’s Proposal should be rejected because it omits key determinations and orders made in the Award with respect to Defendants’ counterclaim concerning Plaintiff’s misrepresentations to third parties regarding her ownership of Assistance Hospice Care, Inc. (“Assistance”), the hospice business at the center of this dispute.” (See Opp. page 2:11-14.)

That is, the dispute herein is not whether or not the Court should confirm the arbitration award, but as to the specific language in the Judgment.

The “Conclusion” portion of the arbitration award states:

Yoon has carried her burden of proof by the requisite standard of proof to establish Respondents' liability on Yoon's claim for fraudulent concealment of the 9/ 19 ADR. Yoon did not carry her burden of proof to establish any of her other claims. In particular, Yoon did not prevail on her claim of rescission of the purchase of Assistance. As such, at all times after the purchase date of October 24, 2019, Yoon was and is the owner of Assistance. Respondents did not carry their burden of proof to establish any of their counterclaims - with the limited exception of my ordering that Yoon remained the owner of Assistance . Yoon is entitled to $514,671 in damages, plus prejudgment interest at the rate of seven (7) percent from March 12, 2020, against Respondent Joyce Shaun Lee and Respondent Aaron Lang, jointly and severally. Yoon is entitled to attorneys' fees in the amount of $67,450, and costs in the amount of $81,961.97- both against Respondent Joyce Shaun Lee and Respondent Aaron Lang, jointly and severally. Yoon is declared the prevailing party. As to any issue not specifically discussed above, the Arbitrator finds against the party having the burden of proof.

(Emphasis added, Petition, Ex. B.)

All in all, Defendants’ proposed Judgment §6 is more accurate than Plaintiff’s proposed Judgment §6 as it reflects the arbitrator’s conclusion that Plaintiff did not prevail on her rescission claim. The language of Defendants’ proposed Judgment §7 was not included in the “Conclusion” portion of the award, and should not be included in the Judgment.

The Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award as set forth in Ex. B to the Petition is GRANTED. Parties should submit a proposed judgment reflecting the above.