Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCP00137, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCP00137    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Petition

Petitioner North American Bancard LLC (“Petitioner”) filed this petition on April 12, 2022 against Respondent Vladyslav Simanko d/b/a Vladyslav’s Constructions (“Respondent”).  Petitioner seeks to confirm a contractual arbitration award. 

The underlying action arises out of a Merchant Processing Application between Petitioner and Respondent.  (Pet., Attachment 4B.) 

The arbitration was conducted by Arbitrator Lawrence J. Kaplan of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on April 1, 2022 in Fresno, California.  (Pet., ¶¶6-8.)  The Award of Arbitrator was entered on April 1, 2022.  (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) 

Petitioner seeks to have the award confirmed.  (Pet., ¶10(a).) 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief from Respondent. 

DISCUSSION

A.    Proof of Service

According to CCP § 1290.4, a copy of the petition and written notice of the time and place for the hearing thereof and any papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement or, if the arbitration agreement does not provide for the manner of service, then service must be made in a manner provided by law for the service of summons in the action.  (CCP § 1290.4(a)-(b); Rutter Guide, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (June 2018 Update) Ch. 9(I)-H, §9:413.1.) 

The Court has reviewed Section 1.50 of the Merchant Processing Agreement, which is entitled “Dispute Resolution.”  This section does not include instructions on how petition papers should be served.  As the arbitration provision does not provide for the manner of service, service must be made in a manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action, such as by way of personal service, substituted service, etc. 

On December 22, 2022, Petitioner filed a Proof of Service of the Summons showing that Respondent was served by substituted service on November 21, 2022 at 6:01 p.m. by serving the documents on Chakerian Kevork, resident at 6513 Gentry Avenue, North Hollywood, CA 91606.  The documents were thereafter mailed.  Service was effectuated by a registered process server.   

B.     Service of the Arbitration Award and Timeliness of the Petition

            CCP § 1288 states: “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.”  “No petition may be served and filed under this chapter until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner.”  (CCP § 1288.4.)  Under CCP § 1290.2, no less than 10 days’ notice must be provided to the responding party before any hearing on the confirmation petition. 

The arbitration took place on April 1, 2022.  (Pet., ¶7.)  The Award was entered on April 1, 2022, which required Respondent to pay damages, interest, and attorney’s fees to Petitioner, and administrative fees to AAA and arbitrator fees.  (Pet., ¶8; Attachment 8(c).)  This amount totals $54,082.

According to the petition, Petitioner alleges that a signed copy of the award was served on April 1, 2022.  (Pet., ¶9.)  The Award of Arbitrator attached a letter, stating that the Award of Arbitrator was served on the parties on April 1, 2022.  (See Attachment 8(c).) 

Based on this timeline of events, the petition was filed and served timely.  The service of the Award took place on April 1, 2022.  The petition was filed within 4 years of that date.  Service of the petition on Respondent occurred at least 10 days after the Award was served, and at least 10 days prior to this petition hearing date.   

C.     Merits of Petition

            The petition includes a copy of the agreement to arbitrate (i.e., the underlying written agreement between the parties), which is attached as Attachment 4(b) to the petition.  The Dispute Resolution provision is provided in paragraph 1.50 of the agreement.  

The arbitration was conducted by Lawrence J. Kaplan on April 1, 2022 with the AAA in Fresno, California.  (Pet., ¶¶6-7.)  According to the Award of Arbitrator, Petitioner appeared and Respondent failed to appear to the arbitration hearing.  The arbitrator reviewed the evidence and determined that Respondent owed $48,662 to Petitioner, together with 10% interest beginning April 15, 2022.  The arbitrator also ordered Respondent to bear and pay to Petitioner the AAA administrative fees of $1,820 and arbitrator fees of $1,200.  Respondent was also ordered to pay Petitioner’s attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $2,400.    According to the petition, Petitioner seeks confirmation of the Award and to have judgment entered according to it.  (Pet., ¶10.)  Petitioner also seeks interest at 10% and costs of suit and attorney’s fees in an amount according to proof.  (Id.) 

There is substantive merit to granting this petition according to the terms of the Award of the Arbitrator.  Further, the petition is not opposed. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Petitioner North American Bancard LLC’s petition to confirm the Award of Arbitrator is granted against Respondent Vladyslav Simanko d/b/a Vladyslav’s Constructions.

Petitioner shall provide notice of this order.