Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP01451, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP01451 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: PETITION
TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner
Rade Raicevic
RESP. PARTY: None
PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
(CCP § 1285)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner Rade Raicevic’s Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award is CONTINUED
TO SEPTEMBER 27, 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) NOT OK
[X]
Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NOT OK
[X]
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of August
22, 2022 [ ] Late [X]
None
REPLY: None filed as
of August 22, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On April 20, 2022, Petitioner Rade Raicevic
(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award against
Respondent Linet Megerdomian (“Respondent”). The petition arose out of an attorney-client
agreement between Petitioner and Respondent, whereby Respondent was retained by
Petitioner to represent him in an action against Safeco Insurance Company of
America. (Pet. p. 17, Attach. 4(b).)
No opposition 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.)
The Code of Civil Procedure
sets out several procedural requirements for this type of petition. First, “[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 of
Civ. Proc. § 1285.4.) “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.” (Code of Civil Procedure §
1283.6, emphasis added.) The
party seeking a court judgment confirming the arbitration award must file and
serve the petition no more than four years, but not less than 10 days, after
the award is served. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.)
“(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.
(d)
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.
III.
Discussion
As
a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Petitioner has not properly served
the Respondent. Proof of Service filed
on May 31, 2022, indicates that Respondent was served by mail at “320 North
Glendale Avenue, Unit 102A, Glendale, CA 91203.
(5-31-22 Proof of Service.) The
address indicated on the Attorney’s Engagement Letter, attached by Petitioner,
indicates that the Respondent’s address is 320 North Central Avenue,
Unit 102A, Glendale, CA 91203. (Pet. p.
17, Attach. 4(b).) The address on the
Respondent’s website for the Glendale Office is also listed as “320 N. Central
Ave. Suite 102A, Glendale CA 91203.”
(megerdomianlaw.com/contact.) In
addition to serving Respondent at the wrong address, it appears that Petitioner
did not serve the Petition itself and only served other documents related to
the Petition. (5-31-22 Proof of
Service.) Given that the Respondent has
not been served, the Court cannot move forward with the hearing on the
Petition.
The
Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition to allow Petitioner an opportunity
to serve Respondent with all documents at the correct address.
In
addition, the Court notes that Petitioner has attached a Settlement Agreement
with Safeco Insurance Company. (Pet. p.
36, Ex. 3.) However, there is no indication
that any arbitration has taken place between Petitioner and Respondent. Accordingly, were service proper in this
instance, the Court would deny the Petition.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
Petitioner Rade Raicevic’s Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award is CONTINUED
TO SEPTEMBER 27, 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.