Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCP04144, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP04144    Hearing Date: August 20, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Thumbtack, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions the Court to confirm the arbitration award issued between Petitioner and Susan Charalambous (“Respondent”) on March 13, 2021 (the “Award”) and enter judgment in favor of Petitioner in accordance with the award.

The Court GRANTS the petition. 

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

Petitioner is an online platform through which local professionals can make themselves available for hiring by local businesses or individuals.

Respondent registered an account with Petitioner on October 14, 2015 and acknowledged agreement to the platform’s Terms of Use.

In March 2019, Respondent used Petitioner’s platform to look for and hire a handyman to perform repairs at her home.

On November 1, 2018, Petitioner updated its Terms of Use and required all users who accessed the platform to click a button agreeing to the Terms of Use.

The Terms of Use include an arbitration providing for binding dispute resolution by JAMS in accordance with JAMS regulations and governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

On May 28, 2021, Respondent filed a complaint for damages against Petitioner in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV20151, raising claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with alleged problems that Respondent had with a contractor that she had hired through Petitioner’s platform.

On November 20, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to compel arbitration. Respondent agreed to arbitration before the motion was heard. The Court dismissed the action with prejudice on December 29, 2021.

On April 1, 2022, Respondent initiated an arbitration (the “Arbitration”) with JAMS by filing a demand against Petitioner (the “Demand”). The Demand alleged the same causes of action as Respondent’s prior lawsuit.

The Demand alleged that Respondent hired contractor Enrique Mendez on Petitioner’s platform to conduct repairs at her home. The Demand alleged that Respondent relied on a guarantee listed on Petitioner’s website to compensate her in the event that that repairs were not done to her satisfaction (the “Guarantee”). The Demand alleged that Petitioner had breached the agreement by failing to compensate Respondent for damages stemming from Mendez’s conduct.

On June 23, 2022, Hiro N. Aragaki (the “Arbitrator”) was appointed as arbitrator in the Arbitration.

On February 21, 2023, following briefing by the parties, the Arbitrator issued an order determining that the Guarantee was a legally enforceable contract, but that Respondent had not fulfilled express conditions, and that Petitioner’s obligations under the Guarantee did not arise as a result.

On March 13, 2023, the Arbitrator issued the Award, which adopted the reasoning of the February 21, 2023 order. The Award provided that Respondent shall take nothing from Petitioner and that the Award determines all issues submitted for decision in the Arbitration. The Award provided that any claims not expressly addressed in the award are denied.

Petitioner filed its petition for confirmation on November 13, 2023. Respondent has not filed an opposition.

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 its petition for confirmation. Petitioner has provided a copy of the arbitration agreement (DiZinno Decl., Ex. B), a copy of the Award (DiZinno Decl., Ex. Q), and the name of the Arbitrator. It has thus complied with Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285.4.

No party seeks an order vacating or correcting the Award.

The Court therefore finds that the statutory requirements for confirmation of an arbitration award are satisfied.

The Court therefore grants the petition.