Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP01866, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP01866 Hearing Date: September 19, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: PETITION
TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner
James Victor Kosnett
RESP. PARTY: None
PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
(CCP § 1285)
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award filed by
Petitioner Kosnett is CONTINUED
TO OCTOBER 31, 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 16
court days before the next scheduled hearing.
Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or
denied.
SERVICE:
[X]
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NONE
[X]
Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NONE
[X]
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NONE
OPPOSITION: None filed as of
September 14, 2022. [ ]
Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of September 14, 2022. [ ]
Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On September 15, 2021,
Arbitrator Jack D. Fine issued an arbitration award in favor of Petitioner
James Victor Kosnett (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent Nicole Joseph
(“Respondent”) in the amount of $3,917.50 plus interest. (Pet. p. 5. - Attach. 6(c).) The arbitration arose out of an attorney-client
dispute regarding attorney’s fees in an underlying action. (Ibid.)
On May 16, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to
Confirm Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondent. 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.”
Here, Petitioner has provided the name
of the individual arbitrating the dispute – Jack D. Fine. (Pet. p. 2 ¶ 4.) Petitioner has also attached a copy of the
award and the written opinion of the arbitrator. (Pet. pp. 5-8 – Attach. 6(c).) However, Petitioner has not attached a copy
of the attorney-client agreement and has not set forth the substance of the
arbitration provision. Petitioner has
not denied the existence of an attorney-client agreement and the Arbitrator
refers to a written retainer in his opinion.
(Pet. p.7: 3-4.)
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, it appears that on September 21,
2021, a copy of the arbitration award was served on Plaintiff and Respondent by
USPS first class mail. (Pet. p. 18.) Furthermore, the Petition to Confirm
Arbitration was filed less than one year after it was served on both parties. (Ibid.; 5-16-22 Pet.)
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.
First, Petitioner has not filed a
copy of the arbitration agreement and thus, it is not clear whether the
agreement prescribes a manner by which the Petition and Notice of Petition must
be served. Second, Petitioner has not
filed Proof of Service demonstrating that the Notice of Hearing and Petition
were served on Respondent.
The Court CONTINUES the hearing on
the Petition to allow Petitioner Kosnett an opportunity to file the
attorney-client agreement containing the arbitration provision, to serve all
documents on Respondent, and to file Proof of Service with the Court.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award filed by Petitioner Kosnett is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 31, 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 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing. Failure to do so may result in the Petition
being placed off calendar or denied.