Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP01800, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP01800 Hearing Date: October 13, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: PETITION
TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner
Nussbaum APC
RESP. PARTY: None
PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
(CCP § 1285)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award filed by Petitioner
Nussbaum APC is GRANTED.
SERVICE:
[
] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule
3.1300) NOT OK
[
] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NOT OK
[
] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NOT OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of
September 8, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of September 8, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On January 25, 2022, Arbitrator
Jeff Burke, Sole Arbitrator, issued an arbitration award in favor of Petitioner
Nussbaum, APC (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent Hillel Shamam
(“Respondent”) in the amount of $5,831.22.
(Pet. p. 12. - Attach. 8(c).) The
arbitration arose out of an attorney-client dispute regarding attorney’s fees
in an underlying unlawful detainer action.
(Ibid. p. 10.)
On May 10, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to
Confirm Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondent. No opposition has been filed.
On September 13, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on
the Petition to allow Petitioner to correct deficiencies and serve the Petition
on Respondent. (9-13-22 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
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 13, 2022, the Court noted that Petitioner had satisfied the filing
requirements of § 1285.4. (9-13-22
Minute Order.)
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 13, 2022, the Court noted
that a copy of the arbitration award was served on Respondent Shamam by first
class mail on February 3, 2022. (9-13-22
Minute Order; Pet. p. 17.) Furthermore,
the Petition was filed approximately three (3) months after it was served on
both parties. (Ibid.)
However, the Court noted that the Petition had
been filed on the wrong form, as it was an arbitration that involved an
attorney-client fee dispute. (9-13-22
Minute Order.) The Court continued the
hearing on the Petition to allow Petitioner to re-file the Petition on Form
ADR-103, Petition to Confirm, Correct, or Vacate Attorney-Client Fee
Arbitration Award.
An Amended Petition has been filed on
Form ADR-103. (9-12-22 Amended
Petition.) The Court notes that the
Petition contains the wrong address for the courthouse where the hearing on the
Petition will be held, as it lists the address for the Stanley Mosk
Courthouse. (Ibid.) However, on September 14, 2022, Petitioner
filed a Notice of Ruling that contains the correct address for the Spring
Street Courthouse, where the hearing will take place, and Proof that the Notice
of Ruling was served on Respondent.
(9-14-22 Notice of Ruling.)
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.
On September 13, 2022, the Court
continued the hearing on the Petition because Petitioner had not filed Proof of
Service indicating that the Petition and Notice of Hearing had been served on
Respondent. (9-13-22 Minute Order.)
Proof of Substituted Service of the
Petition, Amended Petition, and Notice of the Court’s September 13, 2022,
Ruling has been filed with the Court.
(9-8-22 Proof of Service; 9-12-22 Amended Pet. pp. 9-10; 9-14-22 Notice
of Ruling.)
The Court finds that Petitioner has
satisfied all requirements for filing the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
and GRANTS the Petition.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons,
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award filed by Petitioner
Nussbaum APC is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.