Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP01451, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP01451 Hearing Date: September 27, 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:
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award filed by Petitioner
Rade Raicevic is 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: None filed as of September
25, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of September 25, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On April 20, 2022, Petitioner Rade Raicevic
(“Petitioner”), in propria persona, 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).)
On August 24, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on
the Petition because Respondent had not been served at the correct address and
Petitioner had not attached a copy of the arbitration award. (8-24-22 Minute Order.)
On September 15, 2022, Petitioner filed an Amended
Petition.
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
On August 24, 2022, the Court noted that Respondent had been served
at the wrong address and Petitioner had not served the Petition itself. (8-24-22 Minute Order.) Specifically, Respondent had been
served by mail at “320 North Glendale Avenue, Unit 102A, Glendale, CA
91203.” (5-31-22 Proof of Service.) However, the address indicated on the
Attorney’s Engagement Letter, attached by Petitioner, listed Respondent’s
address as 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.). The Court
also noted that Petitioner did not attach a copy of the arbitration award. (8-24-22 Minute Order.)
On September 15, 2022,
Petitioner filed an Amended Petition. In
the Amended Petition, Petitioner included Proof of Personal Service
demonstrating that Respondent was served at the correct address on September
15, 2022. (Amended Pet. p. 90.)
However, it does not
appear that arbitration has concluded and a final arbitration determination has
been made. Petitioner has attached proof
that the matter was submitted for arbitration and states that “Petitioner
believes that final approval of Agreement should arrive at any time.” (Amended Pet. pp. 1, 8-22.) Given that no arbitration award has been
issued to date, the Court cannot review the award to determine whether
procedural requirements have been satifised.
Since arbitration is
still pending, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award filed by Petitioner
Rade Raicevic is DENIED.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons, Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award filed by Petitioner Rade Raicevic is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.