Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP01496, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP01496 Hearing Date: December 5, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: PETITION
TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner
Gursey Schneider LLP
RESP. PARTY: None
PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
(CCP § 1285)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner Gursey Schneider LLP’s Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and
costs is also GRANTED in the amount of $1,050.00 in attorney’s fees and $386.70
in costs, for a total of $1,436.70.
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 November
30, 2022. [ ]
Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of November 30, 2022. [ ]
Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On November 16, 2021, Arbitrator Richard
R. Mainland, through the American Arbitration Association, issued an
arbitration award in favor of Petitioner Gursey Schneider LLP (“Petitioner”)
and against Respondent Derek Brown (“Respondent”)
for a total amount of $17,869.75. (Pet.
pp. 13-18; Exs. B-C.)
On April 25, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition
to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”) against Respondent and Declaration of
Counsel Wright in support of a request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
On August 19, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on
the Petition to September 14, 2022, and on September 6, 2022, it continued the
hearing on the Petition to September 26, 2022.
(8-19-22 Minute Order; 9-6-22 Minute Order.) Petitioner served notices of continuance on
Defendant. (9-8-22 Notice; 9-19-22 Notice.)
On September 26, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on
the Petition to allow Petitioner an opportunity to correct deficiencies in the
Petition. (9-26-22 Minute Order.) On October 7, 2022, Counsel Wright filed a
Supplemental Declaration.
On November 2, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on
the Petition once again to allow Petitioner an opportunity to serve Respondent
with a Notice of Continuance of Hearing and provide the Court with
clarification regarding its request for costs.
(11-2-22 Minute Order.)
On November 2, 2022, Petitioner filed proof that it
served Respondent with a Notice of Continuance of Hearing. (11-2-22 Notice of Continuance.)
On November 7, 2022, Petitioner filed Amended Declaration
of J. Andrew Wright to explain its calculation of costs.
No opposition has been 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.
On September 26, 2022, the Court found
that Petitioner provided the name of the individual arbitrating the dispute –Arbitrator
Richard R. Mainland, through the American Arbitration Association. (9-26-22 Minute Order; Pet. pp. 13-18; Exs.
B-C.) Petitioner also attached a copy of
the Engagement Agreement that contains the arbitration provision and the award
and written opinion of the arbitrator. (9-26-22
Minute Order; Exs. A-C.)
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.)
On September 26, 2022, the Court noted
that the Petitioner submitted the Final Award Letter, but it did not submit
proof that the neutral arbitrator served the parties with a copy of the award. (Pet. pp. 13-18; Exs. B-C.)
On October 7, 2022, Counsel Wright
filed a Supplemental Declaration arguing that the Final Award Letter indicated
that Respondent had been served by the neutral arbitrator on November 18, 2021,
“Via US Mail and Via Email.” (Supp. Wright
Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C.) On November 2, 2022,
the Court found that the Letter demonstrated that the neutral arbitrator had
served the final award on Respondent on November 18, 2021. (11-2-22 Minute Order.)
The Court also found that the Petition
was timely filed. (Ibid.)
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.
The arbitration
provision of the Engagement Agreement states that “any petition to confirm an
arbitration award may be seved by mail at the last known address and that no
personal service will be requried.”
(Pet. p. 11.) On August 22, 2022,
Petitioner filed Proof of Service showing that the Proposed Order and Proposed
Judgment were served on the Respondent via mail. In addition, the Notice of the hearing and
subsequent continuances have also been served on the Respondent. On September 26, 2022, the Court found that
there was no indication that the Petition itself had been served. (9-26-22 Minute Order.)
On October 7, 2022, Petitioner filed
proof that the Petition, along with other documents in the case, had been
served on Respondent on April 26, 2022.
(Supp. Wright Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. D.)
Petitioner has also filed proof that the Supplemental Declaration of
Counsel Wright has been served on Respondent.
(Supp. Wright Decl. pp. 39-40.)
On November 2, 2022, the Court noted
that there was no proof that Respondent had been served with a Notice of
Continuance of the Hearing. (11-2-22
Minute Order.)
On the same day,
following the hearing, Petitioner filed proof that the latest Notice of
Continuance had been served on Respondent by mail. (11-2-22 Notice of Continuance.)
D.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Petitioner requests attorney’s fees
and costs in the amoutn of $3,235.00 as follows: $2,800.00 for five (5) hours
of preparing the Petition and (3) hours of appearing at the hearing, at a rate
of $350.00, as well as $435.00 in costs.
(Wright Decl. ¶ 3.) In his
declaration, Counsel Wright argues that Petitioner is entitled to attorney’s
fees and costs, given that the Engagement Letter allows for an award of
attorney’s fees and costs. (Wright Decl.
¶ 2, Ex. A – p. 4.)
On November 2, 2022,
the Court noted that Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and
costs; however, the Court found that Petitioner’s request was excessive for a
seasoned attorney of 14 years. (11-2-22
Minute Order.) The Court found the
following calculation of attorney’s fees reasonable: two (2) hours of preparing the Petition and
one (1) hour of appearing at the hearing, at a rate of $350.00, for a total of
$1,050.00. (Ibid.)
Moreover, the Court was
unclear regarding Petitioner’s calculation of costs in the amount of $435 and continued
the hearing to allow Petitioner an opportunity to explain the origin of these
costs. (Ibid.)
On November 7, 2022, Petitioner
filed an Amended Declaration of J. Andrew Wright. In the declaration, Counsel notes that he
inadvertenly requested $435.00 as the filing fee for the Petition; however, the
correct filing fee for a petition in limited civil jurisdiction is
$386.70. (11-7-22 Amended Decl. Wright ¶
4, Ex. B.)
The Court finds Petitioner’s request
to be reasonable and grants attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,050.00 and
costs in the amount of $386.70.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons,
Petitioner Gursey Schneider LLP’s Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and
costs is also GRANTED in the amount of $1,050.00 in attorney’s fees and $386.70
in costs, for a total of $1,436.70.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.