Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STCP01895 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP01895, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01895 Hearing Date: September 21, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Christy Cuozzo

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Christy Cuozzo’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 2, 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) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 19, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 19, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On October 27, 2021, Arbitrator Daniel Smith, through the Contractors State License Board Arbitration Program, issued an arbitration award in favor of Petitioner Christy Cuozzo (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent Raymond F. Dilger (“Respondent”) in the amount of $15,000. (Pet. pp. 4-7.)

On May 18, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“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.

Here, Petitioner has provided the name of the individual arbitrating the dispute – Arbitrator Daniel Smith. (Pet. p. 2 ¶ 6.) Petitioner has also attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrator. (Pet. pp. 4-7.) However, Petitioner has not attached a copy of the agreement that contains the arbitration provision and has not set forth the substance of the arbitration provision. Petitioner has not denied the existence of an 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.)

Here, it appears that on October 27, 2021, a copy of the arbitration award was served on Plaintiff and Respondent by USPS mail. (Pet. p. 5.) Petitioner has not presented a copy of the arbitration agreement, so it is unclear whether the agreement required any specific method of service.

Petition is timely as it 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.

Here, Petitioner filed Proof of Personal Service on June 9, 2022. Given that Petitioner has not filed a copy of the arbitration agreement, it is unclear whether the agreement prescribes a manner by which the Petition and Notice of Petition must be served.

In addition, Petitioner is seeking interest which was not awarded by the arbitrator so Petitioner should provide authority for such an award.

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition to allow Petitioner an opportunity to file the agreement containing the arbitration provision.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is to give notice.