Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCP03006, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP03006    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioners Ramblewood Holdings, Ltd. (“RHL”) and Dong Park, also known as Don Park (“Park”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) move for an order confirming the August 30, 2024 Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Award”) and entering judgment as to Respondent VESSL, Inc., formerly known as Gizmo Beverages, Inc. (“Vessl”).

The Court GRANTS Petitioners’ petition.

Background

This dispute arises out of a March 28, 2016 settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) between the parties. (See Lu Decl., Ex. 1.)

Under the Settlement, Vessl was obligated to pay $1,000,000.00 to RHL, issue 329,326 shares of Class B Common Stock to RHL and/or its designees, and (3) remove PARK as the guarantor on two credit cards, all to be completed by no later than early 2017. (See Lu Decl., Ex. 1.)

In 2017, Petitioners initiated an arbitration proceeding, contending that Vessl had failed to comply with any of the above terms.

On May 20, 24, and 25, 2024, the parties conducted an arbitration in front of retired Judge Jacqueline A. Connor of ADR Services, Inc. (the “Arbitrator”). The parties, fact witnesses, and expert witnesses testified. After trial, the parties submitted their argument briefs and reply briefs to the Arbitrator.

On July 9, 2024, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Arbitration Award. The parties subsequently filed competing motions to correct the award, leading to an August 2, 2024 Amended Interim Arbitration Award. The parties then filed competing motions for attorney’s fees and costs, which the Arbitrator denied on August 27, 2024.

On August 30, 2024, the Arbitrator issued the final Award. The Award provided for an award in RHL’s favor against Vessl. RHL did not prevail on its stock claims against Vessl, nor did Park prevail on his credit card claims against Vessl. Petitioners also ask the Court to confirm the Award in this respect.

RHL seek $1,470,177.88, consisting of (1) a $1,000,000.00 as the principal amount of the Award; (2) $405,856.16 accrued interest awarded by the Arbitrator, and (3) $64,321.72 in prejudgment interest from the date of the Award.

On September 18, 2024, Petitioners filed this action for confirmation of the Award.

On January 13, 2025, Petitioners filed this petition to confirm arbitration award. No party has 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

Petitioners have timely filed their petition for confirmation.

Petitioners have provided a copy of the Arbitration Agreement. (Lu Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1 at p. 6, ¶ 20.)

Petitioners have provided a copy of the Award. (Lu Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 2.)

Petitioners have provided the name of the Arbitrator. (Lu Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 2.)

Vessl was served by mail at 17085 Via Del Campo, San Diego, CA 92127. Brett Weaver, attorney for Vessl, executed an acknowledgment of receipt on October 15, 2024. Respondent has therefore been validly served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 415.30

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.

“(a) A person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of

being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is

vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover

interest thereon from that day, except when the debtor is prevented by

law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt. This section is

applicable to recovery of damages and interest from any debtor,

including the state or any county, city, city and county, municipal

corporation, public district, public agency, or any political subdivision of

the state.”

(Civ. Code, § 3287.)

            “If a contract entered into after January 1, 1986, does not stipulate a legal rate of interest, the obligation shall bear interest at a rate of 10 percent per annum after a breach.” (Civ. Code, § 3289, subd. (b).)

            RHL became entitled to recover the amount specified in the Award on August 30, 2024, the date that the Award was issued. RHL’s request for interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum running from that date is therefore proper.

The Court therefore grants the petition.