Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP01286, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01286     Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

 

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Reema Mahtani

RESP. PARTY:         Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) (Non-Opposition)

 

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

 

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Petitioner Reema Mahtani’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Petitioner is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 5 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

 

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:          Notice of Non-Opposition filed on April 29, 2022.          [   ] Late          [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 12, 2022.                           [   ] Late          [X] None

 

ANALYSIS:

 

I.                Background

 

On April 12, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Verified Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”) against Respondents Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC (“FFS”) and Farmers Insurance Exchange (“FIE”), arbitrated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) (collectively “Respondents.”)  FINRA filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Verified Petition on April 29, 2022.  No reply was filed.

 

 

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

 

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.”

 

Here, Petitioner has complied with the filing requirements.  Petitioner has attached a copy of the Petitioner’s and FFS’s agreements to arbitrate.  (Pet. ¶ 4; Exs. 4-5.)  Petitioner has provided the name of the individual and organization arbitrating the dispute – George Frisch and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Dispute Resolution.  (Pet. ¶ 1, 7; Ex. 1 p. 12.)  Petitioner has also attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrator.  (Pet. pp. 7-12; Ex. 1.)  Thus, Petitioner has satisfied the filing requirements of § 1285.4.

 

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.)

 

Here, the arbitration award states a Date of Service of February 10, 2022, but does not provide any information as to who was served and by what method form of service.  (Pet. p. 12.)  Although Petitioner has attached copy of the Arbitration Award to the Petition, § 1283.6 requires the neutral arbitrator itself to serve a copy of the Award on each party.  Thus, this requirement has not been satisfied.

 

C. Service of the Petition, and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §1290.4)

 

Code of Civil Procedure § 1290.4, the statute governing proper service of this Petition states, in pertinent part:

 

“(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.

 

            On April 19, 2022, Petitioner filed Proof of Service demonstrating that Respondents were served with the Petition, Notice of Hearing, and other documents related to the Petition on April 14-15, 2022, via personal service or by mail.  (4-19-22 Proof of Service.)  Petitioner has satisfied service requirements for the Notice and Petition.

 

            However, since there is no proof that the neutral arbitrator served a copy of the Award on each party, the Court CONTINUES the hearing to allow Petitioner an opportunity to provide additional proof that FINRA served the Award on each party.

 

IV.           Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Reema Mahtani’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.  Petitioner is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 5 court days before the next scheduled hearing.  Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.