Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

nrt west, inc. dba coldwell banker realty,

Petitioner,

xqb management, inc. dba re/max one, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 23BBCP00104

Hearing Date: June 23, 2023

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Petition to confirm arbitration award

BACKGROUND

Petitioner NRT West, Inc. dba Coldwell Banker Realty (“Petitioner”) filed this petition on April 26, 2023 against Respondents XQB Management, Inc. dba Re/Max One (“Re/Max”) and Shavonda Hill (“Hill”). Petitioner seeks to confirm a contractual arbitration award. In support of the petition, Petitioner filed the declaration of Kevin J. Driscoll.

According to the petition, the arbitration award was entered on July 19, 2022, amended on August 9, 2022, and affirmed on March 7, 2023. The arbitration award requires that Respondents pay to Petitioner the amount of $181,500.

On May 22, 2023, Petitioner filed the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the petition and the declaration of Carlos V. Yguico.

On May 30, 2023, Re/Max filed an opposition brief. On June 1, 2023, Re/Max filed another opposition brief. The Court will consider the later-filed opposition as the operative opposition to the petition.

On June 16, 2023, Petitioner filed a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 1285 states: “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 respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.”

CCP § 1285.4 requires the petition to:

(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 names of the arbitrators; and

(CCP §1285.4.)

CCP §1286 states: “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” CCP §1287.4 states that once confirmed, an award is enforceable as a judgment.

DISCUSSION

A. Service of the Arbitration Award

“The neutral arbitrator shall serve a signed copy of the award on each party to the arbitration personally or by registered or certified mail or as provided in the agreement.” (CCP § 1283.6.) 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 Court has reviewed the documents filed in this action. The Award of Arbitrators was served on all parties on July 22, 2022. (See Pet., Attachment 8c.) It is unclear whether the amended arbitration award was served on August 9, 2022. Nevertheless, it appears that the Action Upon Review – Arbitration – Southland Regional Association of Realtors document, which shows that the arbitrator’s award was affirmed on March 7, 2023, was served on the parties. The petition to confirm arbitration award was filed on April 26, 2023. In the opposition brief, Re/Max does not argue that there are any issues with service.

B. Merits of Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award

An arbitration award is not directly enforceable until it is confirmed by a court and judgment is entered. (CCP § 1287.6; Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.) The court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (CCP § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.) CCP § 1285.4 states the requirements of a petition.

The Petition complies with the section 1285.4 requirements.

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 Petition sets forth the name of the arbitrators. The arbitration was conducted by Wendy Cox, Kreg Gable, and Irene Reinsdorf on July 19, 2022. The Arbitration Appeal was conducted by Annette Berger, Sharon Berman, and Ryan Huggins on March 7, 2023. (Pet., ¶¶6-7.)

Finally, the Petition sets forth or provides a copy of the award and the written award of arbitrators. (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) According to the Award of Arbitrators, the arbitrators reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence and the arbitrators determined that $181,250 was due and owing from Respondents to Petitioner, together with $250 for the arbitration filing fee, for a total of $181,500, which Respondents were ordered to pay within 30 days of the award becoming final. (Id.) The award was affirmed on March 7, 2023. (Id.)

In the memorandum of points and authorities, Petitioner argues that the dispute arose in 2021 between Petitioner and Re/Max as to whether Petitioner’s agents (Kevin Driscoll and Giovanni Ferdinand) or Hill (Re/Max’s agent) were the procuring cause for the sale of the 9928 Toluca Lake, Toluca Lake, CA property to an individual named Kenya Barris. Escrow on Mr. Barris’ home purchase closed on May 5, 2021 and yielded a payment of $181,250 real estate commission to Re/Max and to Hill. (Driscoll Decl., ¶6-9.) Due to the dispute, on June 24, 2021, Petitioner, on behalf of its agents Driscoll and Ferdinand, filed an arbitration against Re/Max and Hill for the commission in dispute. Petitioner seeks to confirm the arbitration award for $181,500 in their favor and argue that Respondents have not moved to vacate the award. Petitioner acknowledges that it received a payment of $199,320.62 from Re/Max on May 10, 2023, but it contends that it is entitled to interest from before March 7, 2023 (the date the arbitrators affirmed the award). (See Yguico Decl., ¶¶4-5.)

It appears that there is a dispute as to who was entitled to the commission and this was only determined at the time of the award of arbitrators, which was later affirmed. The parties do not appear to dispute that Respondents owe Petitioner the $181,500 amount. Although it appears that Petitioner has received the $181,500 award in full, the remaining dispute appears to be how much interest is appropriate. Petitioner does not provide an interest calculation in its moving papers or provide a date for when interest should begin.

In opposition, Re/Max argues that the crux of the issue in dispute is whether Petitioner is entitled to interest due from May 5, 2021. Re/Max argues that it wired what it believed to be the amount owed on interest in the amount of $199,320.62 on May 12, 2023, which covers interest from July 19, 2022 (the date Petitioner was awarded $181,500 at arbitration) to May 12, 2023. Re/Max argues that Petitioner’s request for interest from May 5, 2021, which predates the arbitrator’s award, is improper. Re/Max calculated the interest as follows: [$181,500 award x 10% per year] = $18,150 per year; [$18,150 per year ÷ 365 days] = $49.73 per day; [$49.73 per day x 297 days between July 19, 2022 to May 12, 2023] = $14,769.81 in interest. Re/mMax states that it paid $199,320.62 to Petitioner (= $181,500 award + $14,769.81 in interest + an additional $3,050.81 to cover attorney’s fees and costs). (Opp. at p.4.)

In reply, Petitioner argues that the Court should merely confirm the award at this time and defer the decision regarding the proper amount of interest until properly filed noticed motions are on calendar. Petitioner argues that the remaining disputes in this action are attorney’s fees and interest.

The petition only requests that the Award of Arbitrator be confirmed. At this time, the Court finds there is substantive merit to granting the petition according to the terms of the Award of Arbitrator. Thus, the Court grants this petition. With respect to the calculation for interest, this argument should be raised in a separate motion and briefed by each of the parties regarding when the date of interest should begin and each parties’ respective calculations thereto.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner NRT West, Inc. dba Coldwell Banker Realty’s petition to confirm the Award of Arbitrator is granted.

Petitioner shall provide notice of this order.