Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STCP03435 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP03435, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 22STCP03435 Hearing Date: January 20, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Cardiac Imaging Nuclear Associates

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed by Petitioner Cardiac Imaging Nuclear Associates, is CONTINUED TO MARCH 1, 2023 at 10:30 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) NOT OK

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

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NOT OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 16, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 16, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On August 23, 2022, Arbitrator Janice L. Sparrow, issued an arbitration award in favor of Petitioner Cardiac Imaging Nuclear Associates (“Petitioner”) and against Respondents Vorobiof Medical Corporation (“Vorobiof Medical”) and Gabriel Vorobiof, M.D. (“Vorobiof”), (collectively “Respondents”) in the amount of $23,050.00 plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest. (Pet. ¶¶ 6-8; Pet. pp. 4-17 – Attach. 8(c).)

On September 16, 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 – Arbitrator Janice L. Sparrow. (Pet. p. 2 ¶ 6.) Petitioner has also attached a copy of the Professional Services Agreement that contains the arbitration provision and the Final Award and written opinion of the arbitrator. (Pet. pp. 18-31 – Attach. 4(b) ¶ 10(c), Pet. pp. 4-17 – 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 states that a copy of the award was served on August 23, 2022. (Pet. p. 2 ¶ 9(a).) The Court finds no information regarding when and how the Final Award was served on Respondents. 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.

Petitioner has filed Proof of Service indicating that the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award was served on Respondents by electronic transmission on September 15, 2022. (Pet. pp. 32-33.) Given that the arbitration clause in the Agreement does not provide for a manner of service of the Petition and Respondents have not previously appeared in the case, service “shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1290.4(b).) Section 416.10 indicates that “[a] summons may be served on a corporation by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint by” personally serving it on the agent for service of process, the president, chief executive office, or other statutorily permitted individual. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 416.10.) Service on an individual may be accomplished through personal service or substitute service, as set forth in Sections 415.10 and 415.20. Thus, the Court finds that Respondents were not properly served with the Petition.

The Court also finds that Petitioner has not served Respondents with the Notice of Hearing.

For these reasons, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Petition to Confirm Arbitration. Petitioner is ordered to file proof that the Final Award was served on Respondents. Petitioner is also ordered to properly serve Respondents with the Petition and Notice of Hearing.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.