Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STCP01866 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP01866, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01866 Hearing Date: October 31, 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 DECEMBER 7, 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 October 24, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 24, 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.

On September 19, 2022, the Court noted that Petitioner had attached a copy of the arbitration award and the written opinion of the arbitrator; however, he had not attached a copy of the attorney-client agreement containing the arbitration provision or set forth the substance of the provision. (9-19-22 Minute Order, p. 2.) The Court also noted that Petitioner had not filed proof that the Petition and Notice of Hearing had been served on Respondent. (Ibid. at pp. 3-4.) For these reasons, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition to allow Petitioner an opportunity to file supplemental papers. (Ibid.)

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.

On September 19, 2022, the Court noted that Petitioner had provided the name of the arbitrator and attached a copy of the arbitration award with the written opinion of the arbitrator. (9-19-22 Minute Order; Pet. pp. 5-8 – Attach. 6(c).) However, Petitioner had not attached a copy of the attorney-client agreement which is referenced in the arbitrator’s opinion or set forth the substance of the arbitration provision. (Ibid.)

The Court notes that to date, Petitioner has not filed the agreement or additional papers discussing the substance of the agreement.

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 19, 2022, the Court noted that a copy of the arbitration award was served on Plaintiff and Respondent by USPS first class mail on September 21, 2021. (9-19-22 Minute Order; Pet. p. 18.) Furthermore, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration was filed less than one year after it was served on both parties. (Ibid.; Pet.)

C. Service of the Petition, and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §1290.4)

Code of Civil Procedure § 1290.4, the statute governing proper service of this Petition states, in pertinent part:

“(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 19, 2022, the Court noted that the Petitioner had not filed proof that the Petition and Notice of Hearing had been served on Respondent. (9-19-22 Minute Order.) Furthermore, since a copy of the attorney-client agreement, containing the arbitration provision, had not been filed, the Court could not determine the manner by which these documents were supposed to be served. (Ibid.)

To date, Petitioner has not filed proof that the Petition and Notice of Hearing have been served.

For these reasons, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition, one final time. Petitioner Kosnett is ordered to file the attorney-client agreement containing the arbitration provision, to serve all documents on Respondent, including a Notice of Continuance of the hearing, 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 DECEMBER 7, 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.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.