Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCP01284, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP01284    Hearing Date: September 24, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Adriana Galindo (“Petitioner”) petitions the Court to confirm the arbitration award issued between Petitioner and Respondent Green Remodeling & Beyond, Inc. (“Green”) on May 31, 2019 (the “Award”) and enter judgment in favor of Petitioner in accordance with the Award.

The Court GRANTS the petition in part. The Court GRANTS the petition as to Respondent Green. The Court DENIES the petition to the extent that it seeks to impose liability on Respondents James Prejean (“Prejean”) or Ilan Nizar (“Nizar”).

The Court does not have a proposed judgment incorporating the award and directs Petitioner to submit such a proposed judgment.  The Court sets an OSC re entry of judgment within 30 days.

Background

This dispute relates to a home remodeling contract.

Petitioner Galindo and non-party Mildred Chang entered into a home improvement contract (the “Contract”) with Respondent Green. (Petition, Attachment 4(b).) The Contract contained an agreement to arbitrate disputes between the parties (the “Arbitration Agreement”). (Petition, Attachment 4(b) at p. 13.)

A dispute subsequently arose between Petitioner and Green.

An arbitration was conducted before the Contractors State License Board Arbitration Program. (Petition, Attachment 8(c).) On May 31, 2019, the arbitrator, Daniel Smith, issued an award (the “Award”) in Petitioner’s favor and against Green. (Petition, Attachment 8(c).) The arbitrator found that upon termination of the Contract, Green had received funds in excess of the value of the work performed and ordered that Green return $47,150.00 to Petitioner.

The Award appears to indicate that Nizer is a contact person or addressee for Green. However, the license number listed in the Award for the respondent is that of Green, as shown by the Contractors State License Board, of which the Court takes judicial notice.

Petitioner filed this petition on April 20, 2023, naming Green, Prajean, and Nizer (collectively, “Respondents”) as respondents.

On May 7, 2024, Prajean and Nizer jointly filed an opposition, in which they contend that the Award does not provide for their personal liability.

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.) Venue is proper in any court having jurisdiction in the county where the arbitration was held. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1292.2.)

If a petition to confirm an arbitration award is duly served and filed, the court must confirm the award as made, unless the court corrects or vacates the award pursuant to a response to the petition or a petition to correct or vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818 [no authority to alter terms of award absent petition to correct].) “If an award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.) 

“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.

(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.)

The petition must be served no earlier than 10 days, but no later than 4 years, after service of the award on the petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.) The petition, written notice of the time and place of the hearing on the petition, and any other papers upon which the petition is based must be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for service of such petition and notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4(a).)

“[A]n arbitrator's decision is not ordinarily reviewable for error by either the trial or appellate courts[.]” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 13.) “[J]udicial review of private arbitration awards [is limited] to those cases in which there exists a statutory ground to vacate or correct the award.” (Id. at pp. 27-28.) These grounds are set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1286.2 and 1286.6. (Id. at p. 13.) A court may not vacate or correct an award unless a petition or response requesting that the award be vacated or corrected has been duly served and filed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1286.4, 1286.8.)

Discussion

Petitioner has timely filed her petition for confirmation. Petitioner has provided a copy of the Arbitration Agreement (Petition, Attachment 4(b) at p. 13), a copy of the Award (Petition, Attachment 8(c)), and the name of the Arbitrator (Petition, Attachment 8(c) at p. 1). She has thus complied with Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285.4.

Prajean and Nizer do not oppose the petition as to Green, but argue that the Award did not grant Petitioner any remedies against Prajean or Nizer personally. The Court agrees. The Award entitles the arbitration “In the Matter of: Adriana Galindo c/o Geoffrey G. Melkonian, Esq. v. Green Remodeling & Beyond”.

Service of the award was effected on Petitioner and Green, but not on Prajean or Nizer. (Petition, Attachment 8(c) at p. 2.)

As discussed above, the Award appears to indicate that Nizer is a contact person or addressee for Green. However, the license number listed in the Award for the respondent is that of Green, as shown by the Contractors State License Board, of which the Court takes judicial notice.

Prajean is not mentioned by name at all in the Award, and it is unclear what his relation to the case is.

Nothing in the petition or the award indicates that a theory such as alter ego liability is available under which Prajean or Nizer could be held liable in Green’s place.

The Court therefore finds that the Award was granted against Green, but not against Prajean or Nizer. The Court therefore grants the petition as against Green, but denies the petition insofar as it attempts to impose personal liability on Prajean or Nizer.