Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCP00183, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCP00183    Hearing Date: December 1, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Petition Allegations

Petitioner Forward Financing, LLC filed a Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award against Respondents Special Effects Unlimited, Inc. dba Special Effects Unlimited (“Special Effects”) and Pamela Elliot (“Elliot”).  According to the petition, the parties entered into a written Future Receipts Sales Agreement on August 8, 2022, which included an arbitration provision at section 10.  (Pet., Attachment 4(b).)  The underlying dispute was based on Respondents’ alleged breach of the agreement whereby the parties agreed Petitioner would purchase $106,400 worth of future receivables for $69,005 from Respondents.  Respondents had allegedly failed to pay Petitioner the weekly rate of $3,325 until the $106,400 was paid.  (Pet., ¶5.) 

The matter went to arbitration on July 21, 2023 in Boston, Massachusetts before Arbitrator Anne W. Larkin.  (Pet., ¶¶6-7.)  The Award of Arbitrator was made that same day, which required Respondents to pay to Petitioner the amount of $60,160.  (Pet., ¶8; Attachment 8(c).)  Petitioner alleges that a signed copy of the award was served on July 21, 2023.  (Pet., ¶9(b).) 

Petitioner filed this petition on August 14, 2023.  It now requests that the Court confirm the award and enter judgment according to the Award of Arbitrator.

The matter initially came for hearing on October 6, 2023.  The Court continued the hearing to December 1, 2023 in order to provide time for Petitioner to serve Respondent Pamela Elliot with the petition papers or file proof of service of the petition.  The Court ordered any opposition and reply brief to be filed pursuant to code.

On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing that Special Effects was served by personal service on August 25, 2023.  On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing that the petition documents were personally served on Elliot on August 26, 2023. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. 

DISCUSSION

A.    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 July 21, 2023.  (Pet., ¶7.)  The Award of Arbitrator was entered on July 21, 2023, which required Respondents to pay Petitioner the amount of $60,160.  (Pet., ¶8; Attachment 8(c).)  In the letter attached to the Award of Arbitrator, a signed copy of the award was actually served on July 21, 2023.  (Pet., ¶9; see Attachment 8(c).) 

On August 28, 2023, Petitioner filed a proof of service of the petition papers on Defendant Special Effects by personally serving Elliot on August 25, 2023 at 12:38 p.m. at 8942 Lankershim Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 91352.  On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing that the petition documents were personally served on Elliot on August 26, 2023 at 10326 Johanna Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 91040. 

Based on this timeline of events, the petition was timely filed and served.  The service of the Final Award took place on July 21, 2023.  The petition was filed within 4 years of that date.  Service of the petition occurred at least 10 days after the Final Award was served, and at least 10 days prior to this petition hearing date.  

B.     Merits of Petition

            The petition includes a copy of the Future Receipts Sale Agreement (i.e., the underlying written agreement between the parties), which is attached as Attachment 4(b) to the petition.  Section 10 includes the “Mandatory Arbitration of Disputes / Waivers” term.  Section 10(a) states that the parties agree that any court with jurisdiction may enter judgment upon the arbitrator’s award, which will be final and binding.    

The arbitration was conducted by Anne W. Larkin on July 21, 2023 with the AAA in Boston, Massachusetts.  (Pet., ¶¶6-7.)  According to the Award of Arbitrator, Petitioner appeared through its in-house counsel and Respondents failed to appear through their attorney to the arbitration hearing.  The arbitrator reviewed the evidence and determined that Respondents owed to Petitioner $60,160, which included $58,975 in damages, $47.50 in a financing charge, and $1,137.50 for administrative fees and arbitration costs.  Pursuant to the agreement, Respondents were jointly and severally liable for the amount awarded. 

             According to the petition, Petitioner seeks confirmation of the Award and entry of judgment according to its terms.  (Pet., ¶10.) 

Therefore, there is substantive merit to granting this petition according to the terms of the arbitrator’s Final Award.  In addition, the petition is not opposed and Respondents have not filed a petition to vacate the award within 100 days of service of the signed award (i.e., 100 days from February 22, 2019 is June 2, 2019).  (See CCP §1288.)  Thus, the Court grants this petition. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner Forward Financing, LLC’s petition to confirm the arbitrator’s Award of Arbitrator is granted.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:  All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

Petitioner shall provide notice of this order.