Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STCP02252 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP02252, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02252 Hearing Date: November 7, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner World Tech Toys, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner World Tech Toys, Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award 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) OK

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

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

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 2, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 2, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On June 2, 2022, Arbitrator Honorable Rosalyn Chapman (retired), through JAMS Arbitration, issued an arbitration award in favor of Petitioner World Tech Toys, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent JRL Opportunity Group LLC (“Respondent”) in the amount of $3,050. (Pet. pp. 10-16 – Attach. 8(c).)

On June 14, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”). 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 – the Honorable Rosalyn Chapman (retired), through JAMS Arbitration. (Pet. p. 2 ¶ 6.) Petitioner has also attached a copy of the Distributor Agreement that contains the arbitration provision and the Final Award and written opinion of the arbitrator. (Pet. pp. 4-9 – Attach. 4(b), Pet. pp. 10-16 – Attach 8(c).)

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, “Petitioner alleged that a signed copy of the award was actually served on (date): 06/02/2022.” (Pet. p. 2 ¶ 9(b).) The Court finds no information regarding when and how the Final Award was served on Respondent. As a result, the Court cannot determine if the Petition was filed ten or more days after the Final Award was served.

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 August 1, 2022, Petitioner filed Affidavit of Service demonstrating that Respondent was personally served with the Petition and Notice through its agent for service of process, John Leake, on July 13, 2022. (8-1-22 Affidavit of Service.)

Petitioner has also filed proof that the Notice of Continuance of the Hearing has been served on Respondent. (10-3-22 Proof of Service.)

The Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied most of the requirements for the Petition. However, Petitioner has not presented sufficient proof that the neutral arbitrator served the Final Award on Respondent. For this reason, the Court continues the hearing on the Petition to allow Petitioner an opportunity to file and serve additional proof that the neutral arbitrator served the Final Award on Respondent.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.