Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP02592, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02592     Hearing Date: March 13, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY:   Respondent Hsiang Liou

RESP. PARTY:         Petitioner Carlson & Nicholas, LLP

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR ARBITRATION

(None cited)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Respondent Hsiang Liou’s Motion for Extension of Time for Arbitration 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:          Filed on February 22, 2023.                                    [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of March 7, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On December 24, 2021, Petitioner Carlson & Nicholas, LLP (“Petitioner” or “C&N”) filed an Attorney’s Petition with the Los Angeles County Bar Association (“LACBA”) asking Respondent Hsiang Liou (“Respondent” or “Liou”) to submit to arbitration regarding an alleged fee dispute for legal services rendered in the amount of $15,632.20.  (Pet. ¶¶ 7-8; Ex. B.)  LACBA served Respondent with the Petition and Respondent filed a Reply.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 9-10.)  Lawrence H. Jacobson was appointed as the Arbitrator and the arbitration hearing was set for June 16, 2022.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 10-11.)  On May 16, 2022, Respondent notified the Arbitrator and Petitioner that she refused to participate in the arbitration.  (Ibid. at ¶ 12.)

On July 12, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration (“Petition”) seeking an order compelling Respondent to arbitrate the fee dispute before Arbitrator Lawrence H. Jacobson, as appointed by LACBA, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the principal amount of $15,632.20, costs of proceeding, and other relief the Court deemed proper.  (Pet. p. 3.)

On November 15, 2022, the Court granted the Petition to Compel Arbitration, ordered Respondent to submit to arbitration with LACBA, and ordered the action stayed until arbitration is completed.  (11-15-22 Minute Order.)

On December 5, 2022, Respondent Liou filed the instant Motion for Extension of Time for Arbitration (“Motion”).  Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion on February 22, 2023.  No reply has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

Respondent Hsiang Liou requests “a six-month extension of time for arbitration to and through June 2023.”  (Mot. p. 1.)  Respondent explains that she has “business and personal affairs to handle in Taiwan in an emergency fashion from January 6, 2023, to May 30, 2023.”  (Mot. ¶ 3.)

On February 22, 2023, Petitioner filed an Opposition noting the following deficiencies in the Motion.  First, Respondent has not filed a Notice of Motion listing the date, time, and location of the hearing on the Motion, as required by California Rules of Court, rules 3.1110 and 3.1112.  (Oppos. p. 2.)  The Motion also does not contain a memorandum in support of the motion, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a).  Furthermore, Respondent’s arguments are submitted as a list of statements.  (Ibid.)  There is no declaration made under penalty of perjury or judicialy noticeable evidence, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1306 and Code of Civil Procedure § 2015.5.  (Ibid.)

Second, the Court granted Petitioner’s Petition to Compel Arbitration on November 15, 2022, and ordered Petitioner to submit to arbitration with the Los Angeles County Bar Association.  (Ibid.)  Therefore, “the Court does not have jurisidcition to grant the requested relief” because the arbitrator has the authority to schedule the arbitration, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1282.2(a).  (Ibid. at pp. 2-3.)

Third, the Motion is moot because the hearing for the arbitration was scheduled for February 8, 2023, and Petitioner had denied Respondent’s request for an extension.  (Ibid. at p. 3; McDonald Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)  Petitioner states that “[t]here was no reason counsel for Respondent could not appear” and “[t]here also is no reason that Respondent could not appear electronically, if need be.”  (McDonald Decl. ¶ 2; Oppos. p. 3.)

Fourth, the “inadmissible ‘evidence’ submitted in suppport of the Motion” is “irrelevant because the arbitration has already been completed and there is no need to extend the date for arbitration.”  (McDonald Decl. ¶ 3; Oppos. p. 3.)

            The Court agrees with Petitioner’s arguments that the instant Motion contains numerous deficiencies.  Respondent has not filed a Notice of Motion, memorandum in support of the Motion, or a sworn declaration.  Respondent has not filed proof that Petitioner has been served with the moving papers.  The evidence submitted by Respondent is not authenticated and is therefore, not admissible.  Respondent has also failed to provide the Court with any legal authority to grant the relief requested.

            Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the reasons discussed above,

Respondent Hsiang Liou’s Motion for Extension of Time for Arbitration is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.