Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP02252, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP02252 Hearing Date: December 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 GRANTED.
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 December
4, 2022. [ ]
Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of December 4, 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 $3,050.00. (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.
On September 28, 2022, the Court, on its own motion,
continued the hearing on the Petition to November 7, 2022. (9-28-22 Minute Order.)
On November 7, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on
the Petition and ordered Petitioner to file additional proof that the neutral
arbitrator had served the Final Award on Respondent. (11-7-22 Minute Order.)
On November 10, 2022, Petitioner filed additional papers
addressing the Court’s order. (11-10-22
Response; 11-10-22 Declaration.)
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 – 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).) On November 7, 2022, the Court continued the
hearing on the Petition to allow Petitioner additional time to file proof that
the neutral arbitrator had served the Respondent with the Final Award. (11-7-22 Minute Order.)
On November 10, 2022, Petitioner filed
additional papers addressing the Court’s order.
Petitioner states that the Final Award was served on the Respondent
electronically via JAMS Access, a private docketing system, on June 3,
2022. (11-10-22 Response p. 2; Li Decl.
¶¶ 3-4, Exs. B-C.) The parties had
agreed to this manner of service of arbitration documents and the Final Award
on April 22, 2021, and the Preliminary Conference Order No. 1 had been served
through JAMS Access, as well. (11-10-22
Response p. 2; Li Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) The
Petition was filed on June 14, 2022, eleven (11) days after the Final Award was
served. (Ibid.)
The Court finds the evidence submitted
by Petitioner sufficient to demonstrate that the Final Award was served on the
Respondent on June 3, 2022, and the Petition was filed timely.
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 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 Notices of Continuance of the Hearing have been served on
Respondent. (10-3-22 Proof of Service;
11-10-22 Notice of Ruling.)
The Court finds that
Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for the Petition.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons,
Petitioner World Tech Toys, Inc.’s Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.