Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC07276, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.  **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 20STLC07276     Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Eva Weinfeld, Trustee of Eva Weinfeld Family Trust

RESP. PARTY:         Respondent Dave Bischof

PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, filed by Defendant Eva Weinfeld, Trustee of Eva Weinfeld Family Trust is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          Filed on 12/9/2022 and 3/3/2023.                     [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 21, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff Allen Supply (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed a complaint against Defendants Eva Weinfeld (“Weinfeld”) and the Eva Weinfeld Family Trust (“Family Trust”), (collectively “Defendants”) to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien and stay the action pending arbitration. On September 16, 2020, Defendant Eva Weinfeld, in propria persona, filed a Response to Plaintiff.

On October 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Contractual Arbitration.  Defendant Eva Weinfeld, Trustee of Eva Weinfeld Family Trust (“Weinfeld”) filed a Substitution of Attorney on July 12, 2021.  On the same day, Weinfeld filed an Opposition to the Motion.

On July 29, 2021, the Court noted that Allen Supply is a sole proprietorship and not a legal entity separate from its individual owner, Dave Bischoff.  (7-29-21 Minute Order.)  On August 20, 2018, Bischoff had been declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited from filing new litigation without the approval of a presiding judge of the court, where the action was filed, unless he was represented by an attorney.  (Ibid.)  Since Plaintiff had not filed a pre-filing order in the instant case, the Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Contractual Arbitration was placed off calendar and the matter was transferred to Department 1.  (Ibid.)

On September 28, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Request to File New Litigation, within 10 days’ notice, “establishing that his civil Complaint has merit and is not being filed to harass or delay the defendants.”  (9-28-21 Minute Order.)  The Court also ordered the clerk to “notify the Judicial Council that ‘Allen Supply’ is an AKA used by vexatious litigant Dave Bischof.”  (Ibid.)

On October 14, 2021, the Complaint was dismissed without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to file the prefiling order within 10 days of the filing of the notice.  (10-14-21 Minute Order.)

On October 3, 2022, Weinfeld filed the instant Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award (“Petition”) issued in favor of Dave Bischoff.  Weinfeld seeks to vacate an arbitration award issued by Arbitrator Henry M. Koffman on July 18, 2022, requiring Eva Weinfeld and Eva Weinfeld Family Trust to pay Dave Bischof the sum of $3,550 within 15 days from the date of the award.  (Pet. p. 2.)  On December 9, 2022, Allen Supply/Dave Bischof filed an Opposition to the Petition.

On December 20, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition due to improper service.  (12-20-22 Minute Order.)

On December 22, 2022, Weinfeld filed proof of serving the Notice of Ruling on Allen Supply/Dave Bischof.

On January 19, 2023, Weinfeld filed a second Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and Request for Judicial Notice.  Weinfeld also filed proof that Allen Supply/Dave Bischof was properly served with the moving papers on January 19, 2023.

On February 14, 2023, the Court once again continued the hearing because Weinfeld did not authenticate all exhibits and did not present any legal authority on the basis of which the Court could vacate the arbitration award.  (2-14-23 Minute Order.)

On February 23, 2023, Weinfeld filed supplemental papers.  Allen Supply/Dave Bischof filed an Opposition on March 3, 2023.

On March 22, 2023, the Court on its own motion, continued the hearing on the Petition to March 24, 2023.  (3-22-23 Minute Order.)

II.              Legal Standard

“Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator's award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.”  (O'Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants¿(2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.)  “Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: it may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.”  (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.¿(2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.)  “It is well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.”  (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court¿(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.)  “Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may ‘review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator's reasoning, nor may we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator's legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award's face.  Instead, we restrict our review to whether the award should be vacated under the grounds listed in section 1286.2. [Citations.]’”  (Ibid.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 1286.2(a), states, in pertinent part:

“Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following: 

(1)   The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.

(2)   There was corruption in any of the arbitrators.

(3)   The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator.

(4)   The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.

(5)   The rights of the parties were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title.

(6)   An arbitrator making the award…(B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. . . .”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.2(a).)

Only where both (1) the arbitrator abused his or her discretion and (2) there was resulting prejudice, can a trial court properly vacate an arbitration award.  (SWAB Financial, LLC v. E*Trade Securities, LLC (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1198.)

III.            Discussion

The Court finds that Weinfeld has improperly filed the Petition in the instant case because the underlying case was dismissed on October 14, 2021.  (10-14-21 Minute Order.)  Given that the case has been dismissed, the Court no longer has jurisdiction and cannot rule on any new matters in the case.  Weinfeld must initiate a new action if she intends to seek an order vacating the arbitration award.

For this reason, the Court places the Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award off calendar.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

The Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, filed by Defendant Eva Weinfeld, Trustee of Eva Weinfeld Family Trust is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.