Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP02611, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02611     Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Law Offices of Pyng Soon, APC

RESP. PARTY:         None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Law Offices of Pyng Soon, APC’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED without prejudice.

SERVICE:[1]

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 NOT OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 NOT OK

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

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of January 9, 2023.                           [   ] Late          [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of January 9, 2023.                           [   ] Late          [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On May 9, 2022, Arbitrator Nicola Migliaccio, through the Los Angeles County Bar Association Attorney-Client Mediation and Arbitration Services (“LACBA ACMA”), issued an arbitration award in favor of Petitioner Law Offices of Pyng Soon, APC (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent HN Tea Group, Inc. (“HN” or “Respondent”) for a total amount of $7,727.50 and post-award interest at a legal rate of 10% per annum, starting 30 days after the service of the award on the parties.  (Pet. pp. 9-16; Ex. 8(c).)  The arbitration proceedings had been initiated by Respondent HN Tea Group, Inc., through its president Lyson Lin.

On July 13, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”) against Respondents HN Tea Group, Inc. (“HN”) and its president Lyson Lin (“Lin”).

            On November 16, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition to allow Petitioner an opportunity to correct deficiencies noted in its Order.  (11-16-22 Minute Order.)

            On the same day, Plaintiff filed supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted in the November 16, 2022, Court Order.

            On December 19, 2022, the Court again continued the hearing on the Petition noting Petitioner had failed to correct deficiencies with service.  (12-19-22 Minute Order.)

            No additional papers have been filed.  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

On December 19, 2022, the Court noted that Petitioner had properly filed Form ADR-103, Petition to Confirm Attorney-Client Fee Arbitration Award and listed the correct address for the Spring Street Courthouse on Form ADR-103.  (12-19-22 Minute Order.)

Petitioner had also complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 1285.4 by filing the Retainer Agreement containing the arbitration provision and the Statement of Decision and Award signed by Nicola Migliaccio, Arbitrator.  (Ibid.)

Furthermore, Petitioner has filed proof that the Award was properly served on all parties by first class mail on May 11, 2022, and the Petition, filed on July 13, 2022, was timely as required by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4.  (Ibid.)

            However, the Court noted that on November 16, 2022, it had ordered Petitioner to file proof that the Petition, Notice, and all related documents had been served on Respondents.  (12-19-22 Minute Order; 11-16-22 Minute Order.)

Although Petitioner filed Proof of Service indicating that a Notice of Continuance of hearing to December 19, 2022, and Form ADR-103 had been served on Respondents, the Court was not presented with proof that all supplemental papers had been served on Respondents.  (12-19-22 Minute Order.)  The Court also noted that the Notice of Continuance and Form ADR-103 were not properly served, in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1290.4(b), as documents should have been personally served on Michelle Zhang, Respondent’s Agent for Service of Process, at 113 Pumpkin, Irvine, CA 92620, as indicated on the California Secretary of State website.  (Ibid.)

            For this reason, the Court again continued the hearing on the Petition and ordered Petitioner to serve Respondents with all documents filed with the Court via personal service at the address for its agent for service of process.  (Ibid.)

            Following the December 19, 2022, Court Order, no additional papers have been filed by Petitioner.

            For this reason, the Petition to Confirm Arbitration filed by Law Offices of Pyng Soon, APC is DENIED without prejudice.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Petitioner Law Offices of Pyng Soon, APC’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.