Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP01866, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP01866 Hearing Date: December 7, 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 James Victor Kosnett is DENIED without prejudice.
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 December
4, 2022. [ ]
Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of December 4, 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 (“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.)
On October 31, 2022, the Court noted that Petitioner had
not filed any supplemental papers addressing the issues raised by the Court and
once again continued the hearing on the Petition. (10-31-22 Minute Order.)
On November 22, 2022, Petitioner filed Declaration of
Louis V. Kosnett in Support of the Petition.
The Court notes that Petitioner has not complied with the Court’s order
to file additional documentation at least sixteen (16) court days prior to the
next scheduled hearing.
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 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.)
On
October 31, 2022, Court noted Petitioner had not filed the agreement or
additional papers discussing the substance of the agreement and continued the
hearing once again. (10-31-22 Minute
Order.)
On
November 22, 2022, Petitioner filed Declaration of Louis V. Kosnett in Support
of the Petition. Petitioner argues that
the “Petition arises from a binding statutory attorney-client fee arbitration”
initiated by the Respondent/Client and has attached a copy of the Respondent’s
electronic submission of the request for arbitration to the Los Angeles County
Bar Association. (Kosnett Decl. ¶ 2, Ex.
A.) The copy of the submission
demonstrates that Respondent noted “I agree to binding arbitration” in response
to Question 13. (Ibid. at p. 5, ¶
13.) Petitioner has also attached a copy
of a letter from the Petitioner’s law firm to Respondent regarding its fees and
a copy of its Reply to the Respondent’s request for arbitration with the LA
County Bar Association. (Kosnett Decl.
¶¶ 3-4, Exs. A-B.) The Court finds that
this is sufficient to prove that the parties agreed to arbitrate.
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)
“(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.)
To date, Petitioner has not filed
proof that the Petition and Notice of Hearing or Notices of Continuance have
been served on Respondent.
For this reason, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
filed by Petitioner Kosnett is denied without prejudice.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons,
The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award filed by
Petitioner James Victor Kosnett is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.