Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP03461, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP03461 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: PETITION
TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner
Pinnacle Estate Properties, et al.
RESP. PARTY: None
PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
(CCP § 1285)
TENTATIVE RULING:
The hearing on Petitioner Pinnacle
Estate Properties, et al.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED
to MARCH 30, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in DEPARTMENT 25, 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) NOT
OK
[X]
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of February
26, 2023. [ ]
Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of February 26, 2023. [ ]
Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On September 27, 2021, Arbitrators
Valerie Ho, Samuel D. Cadelinia, and Michael Simpson, through the Interboard
Arbitration of the California Association of Realtors (“CAR”), issued an
arbitration award in favor of Petitioners Pinnacle Estate Properties
(“Pinnacle”), Craig Dubron (“Dubron”), Gary Keshishyan (“Keshishyan”), and Rana
Linka (“Linka”), (collectively “Petitioners”), and against Respondents Century Realty & Loans, Inc. (“Century
Realty”) and Elizabeth Guemiksizian (“Guemiksizian”), (collectively “Respondents”),
for a total amount of $23,750.00. (Pet. p.
5 – Attach. 8(c).) Respondents requested
a director’s review of the arbitrators’ findings and on December 2, 2021, the
arbitration award was affirmed. (Pet. p.
14.)
On September 19, 2022, Petitioners filed the instant
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”) against Respondents.
On January 12, 2023, the Court, on its own motion,
continued the hearing on the Petition to February 28, 2023. (1-12-23 Minute Order.)
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.
(c) Set forth or have attached a copy of
the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.
On September 27, 2021, Arbitrators
Valerie Ho, Samuel D. Cadelinia, and Michael Simpson, through the Interboard
Arbitration of the California Association of Realtors, issued an arbitration
award in favor of Petitioners Pinnacle, Dubron, Keshishyan, and Linka, and
against Respondents Century Realty and Guemiksizian
for a total amount of $23,750.00.
(Pet. p. 5 – Attach. 8(c).)
Respondents requested a director’s review of the arbitrators’ findings
and on December 2, 2021, the arbitration award was affirmed. (Pet. p. 14.)
The Court finds that a copy of the award
as well as the decision to affirm the award has been filed with the Court and
the names of the arbitrators has been provided.
(Pet. ¶ 6, pp. 5, 14.)
No agreement to arbitrate has been
filed with the Petition. Petitioners
state that the rules of the “CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
("CAR") REQUIRES AN INTERBOARD ARBITRATION HEARING BETWEEN MEMBERS
INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE.” However, the Petition does not set
forth or include a copy of the CAR rules that require arbitration.
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.)
Petitioners indicate that a copy of
the award was served on Petitioner on September 27, 2021. However, there is no evidence indicating that
the neutral arbitrator served a copy of the award on each party.
Given that the Court cannot determine
whether and when a copy of the award was served, it also cannot determine
whether 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.
First, Petitioners
have not filed any agreement or the rules of the California Association of
Realtors that provide guidance regarding the proper manner of service.
Second, Petitioners
have filed Proof of Service indicating that the Petition and the Notice have
been served on Petitioners’ counsel via email.
(Pet. p. 15; 9-26-22 Notice p. 3; 1-19-23 Notice p. 2.) Even if the CAR
rules do not mandate a specific form of service, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure § 1290.4(b),
the Petition and Notice must be served in a manner consistent with service of
summons. Here, the Petition must be
served on individual Respondent Guemiksizian in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure §§ 415.10 or 415.20 and on Century Realty in accordance with § 416.10.
D. Attorney’s Fees and
Costs
Petitioner requests interest at a
rate of 10% per year, as well as attorney’s fees and costs according to proof. (Pet. ¶ 10d-f.)
However, the Award of the
Arbitrators does not award interest and states that “[e]ach party shall bear
its own costs. (NO costs awarded.).”
(Pet. p. 5 – Attach. 8(c).)
Petitioners may submit supplemental
proof to show that they are entitled to interest and costs.
Given the deficiencies noted above,
the Court continues the hearing on the Petition and allows Petitioners an
opportunity to file supplemental papers and properly serve Respondents.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons,
The hearing on Petitioner Pinnacle
Estate Properties, et al.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED
to MARCH 30, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in DEPARTMENT 25, 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.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.