Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC03205, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC03205 Hearing Date: March 30, 2023 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: PETITION
TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
MOVING PARTY: Petitioners Dominique Nicole Knox and Delano
Daniels
RESP. PARTY: None
PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
(CCP §§ 1285 et seq.; 685.010, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award, filed by Petitioners Dominique Nicole Knox and Delano
Daniels is GRANTED.
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: None
filed as of March 28, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None
filed as of March 28, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On April 23, 2021, Plaintiffs
Dominique Nicole Knox (“Knox”) and Delano Daniels (“Daniels”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) filed an action against Planet Cars, Inc. dba Cash or Finance
Auto (“Planet Cars”) and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”),
(collectively “Defendants”), for (1) violation of Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, Civil Code § 1750 et seq., (2) violation of California Business and
Professions Code § 17200, et seq., Unlawful Acts or Practices, and (3) Claim
Against Surety.
On August 31, 2021, Defendants
filed a Stipulation to Stay Action and Proceed to Arbitration, signed by all
parties, which was granted by the Court on the same day. (8-31-21 Stipulation and Order.) The Court set a Post-Arbitration Review
hearing for March 7, 2022. (Ibid.) The Post-Arbitration Status Conference was
subsequently continued to April 18, then to October 18, and then to November
30, 2022. (3-7-22 Minute Order; 4-18-22
Minute Order; 9-28-22 Minute Order.) On
November 30, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that arbitration was
held on November 3, 2022, and a Petition to Confirm Arbitration would be
filed. (11-30-22 Minute Order.)
On December 12, 2022, Petitioners
Dominique Nicole Knox (“Knox”) and Delano Daniels (“Daniels”), (collectively
“Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
(“Petition”) issued in favor of Petitioners and against Respondent Planet Cars,
Inc. (“Planet Cars”). No opposition has
been filed.
On February 21, 2023, the Court
granted Counsel James S. Sifers’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel as to
Defendant Planet Cars. (2-21-23 Minute
Order.)
II.
Legal
Standard
Once
arbitration is concluded, “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.). Any of the parties may file a
petition with the court, which must then “confirm the award, correct and
confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.”
(Code of Civil Proc. §§ 1285, 1286; 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.”
(EHM Productions, supra, at p.
1063-64.)
III.
Discussion
Petitioners request a Court order
confirming the arbitration award issued by arbitrator Edward J. Weiss on
November 28, 2022, and granting post-judgment interest at a rate of 10% per
annum. (Mot. pp. 1-2.)
A.
Filing Requirements (CCP § 1285.4)
Code of Civil Procedure, § 1285.4
states: “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.
Petitioners have attached a copy of
the Retail Installment Sales Contract (“RISC”) entered into between Petitioners
and Respondent Planet Cars, which contains the arbitration clause of the
contract. (Sadr Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)
Petitioners have also attached a copy
of the arbitration award, issued by Arbitrator Edward J. Weiss on November 28,
2022, awarding Petitioners compensatory damages in the amount of $8,997.39,
punitive damages in the amount of $5,000, and attorney’s fees and costs in the
amount of $29,932, for a total of $43,929.39.
(Ibid. at ¶ 9, Ex. 4.) The award also
states that Claimants are entitled to post-judgment interest of 10% per annum
and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in seeking to confirm the award. (Ibid.)
B. Service of the Arbitration Award &
Timeliness of Petition (CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4)
Code of Civil Procedure § 1283.6
provides that: “The neutral arbitrator
shall serve a signed copy of the
award on each party to the arbitration personally or by registered or certified
mail or as provided in the agreement.”
(Emphasis added.) In addition, a
party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and
serving a petition no more than four years, but not less than 10 days, after
the award is served. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1288, 1288.4.)
Petitioners state that the American
Arbitration Association rules, Rule R-52, “specifically allows email service to
attorneys.” (Sadr Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) Moreover, “[i]n the preliminary hearing, the
parties agreed to service and communication via email to each attorneys in the arbitration
regarding the above case.” (Ibid.)
On November 28, 2022,
Respondents were served with the arbitration award by email and certified mail. (Ibid. at ¶ 10, Ex. 5.)
The Court finds that Petitioners
have complied with service requirements for the arbitration award and have
filed a timely Petition.
C.
Service of the Petition, and Notice of
Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §1290.4)
“(a) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place
of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided
in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.
(b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the
manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to
be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously
been served in accordance with this subdivision: ¶ (1) Service within this
State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in
an action.
…
(c) If the arbitration agreement
does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person
on whom service is to be made has previously appeared in the proceeding or has
previously been served in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section,
service shall be made in the manner provided in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section
1010) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.
Petitioners have filed Proof
of Service indicating that the Notice and Petition were served on Respondents’
attorneys on December 12, 2022, by mail and email. (Pet. pp. 8-9.)
Given that
Respondents have previously appeared in the case, the Court finds that
Respondents were properly served with the Notice and Petition.
D. Post-Judgment Interest and Attorney’s Fees
Petitioners request post-judgment
interest at a rate of 10% per year, beginning on November 28, 2022. (Pet. p. 2.)
Petitioners argue that they are entitled to post-judgment interest
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 685.010, et seq. (Pet. pp. 6-7.) Code of Civil Procedure §
685.010(a)(1) states that “interest accrues at the rate of 10 percent per annum
on the principal amount of a money judgment remaining satisfied.” Interest begins to accrue on the judgment “on
the date of entry of the judgment.”
(Code of Civ. Proc. § 685.020(a).)
Moreover, according to Code of
Civil Procedure § 685.040, “[t]he judgment creditor
is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.
Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included in costs
collectible under this title unless otherwise provided by law. Attorney’s fees
incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this
title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the
judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision
(a) of Section 1033.5.”
Here, the arbitration award, issued by Edward J. Weiss, states that
Claimants are entitled to post-judgment interest of 10% per annum and
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in seeking to confirm the award. (Sadr Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 4.)
Accordingly, the Court grants
Petitioners’ request for post-judgment interest at a rate of 10% per annum. Petitioners may also seek reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs in enforcing the judgment through a separate motion.
IV.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons,
The Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award, filed by Petitioner Dominique Nicole Knox and Delano Daniels
is GRANTED.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.