Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 22STCP03889 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP03889, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03889 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Young Systems Corporation

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on Petitioner Young Systems Corporation’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is CONTINUED to APRIL 1, 2023 at 10:30 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) OK

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

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 28, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 28, 2023. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On November 16, 2020, Arbitrator Paul J. Carter, Esq. issued an award reflecting a stipulation for settlement between Petitioner Young Systems Corporation (“Petitioner” or “Young Systems”) and Respondent Louis Fuentes, dba Discovery Document Technologies, Discovery Document Reproduction Services, LLC, DTDE, Inc. (“Fuentes”). (Amended Pet. – Ex. 3, pp. 14-15.) Petitioner and Respondent “requested the same award be issued, mirroring the settlement.” (Ibid. at p. 15.) Thus, the award states that Respondent Fuentes and DTDE, Inc., created and owned by Fuentes, will pay twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to Petitioner Young Systems as follows: monthly payments of $500 for six months, commencing on December 1, 2020, and monthly payments of $1,000 thereafter, until the $25,000 is paid in full. (Ibid.) If Respondent does not pay by the fifth day of the month, he will have five days to make a payment after receiving notice; otherwise, the entire sum of $25,000, less payments made, will become due. (Ibid.)

On September 1, 2022, Petitioner submitted Supporting Declaration of Claudia Reed, Office Administrator, to the Arbitrator regarding Respondent’s failure to make payments according to the stipulation and award. (Ibid. at pp. 16-19 – Ex. 4.) In September 2022, Arbitrator Paul J. Carter, Esq. issued a Post Arbitration Subsequent Award of Arbitrator Upon Default of Fuentes and DTDE, Inc., stating that “the total sum of Sixteen Thousand Dollars Even ($16,000) is now due and owing and payable in full by defendants Fuentes and DTDE, Inc.” (Ibid. at pp. 30-32 – Ex. 5.)

On October 27, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”) against Respondent Louis Fuentes, DTDE, Inc.

On October 28, 2022, Petitioner filed a Notice of Related Case, Case No. 20LBCP00310 in Department 27.

Petitioner filed an Amended Petition on November 10, 2022, adding “Louis Anthony Fuentes” and “Louis A. Fuentes, DTDE, Inc.” for Defendant’s other names. Proof of Service by Substituted Service was filed on November 28, 2022.

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

Petitioner requests a Court order (1) confirming post binding arbitration subsequent award, (2) alternatively, confirming both original and post binding arbitration subsequent awards, and (3) correcting Respondent’s name by adding 2 “aka” names. (Amended Pet. pp. 1-2.) Petitioner notes that “[t]he only respondent who is still in ‘active existence’ is Fuentes” as DTDE, Inc. was suspended on August 20, 2007. (Ibid. at p. 3.)

The Court notes that an arbitrator’s award is enforceable only after being confirmed by a court of law. (O’Hare, 107 Cal.App.4th at 278.) “An award that has not been confirmed or vacated has the same force and effect as a contract in writing between the parties to the arbitration.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1287.6.) Thus, the Court must first evaluate and confirm the initial arbitration award, issued on November 16, 2020.

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.

On November 16, 2020, Arbitrator Paul J. Carter, Esq. issued an award reflecting a stipulation for settlement between Petitioner and Respondent. (Amended Pet. – Ex. 3, pp. 14-15.) Petitioner has attached the award and set forth the name of the arbitrator – Paul J. Carter, Esq. (Ibid.)

Petitioner has also attached a copy of the Terms and Conditions of an agreement that contains an arbitration provision. (Pet. p. 12 – Ex. 2.) However, the Court cannot discern whether the Terms and Conditions are part of the same agreement as the one in Exhibit 1. (Ibid. at pp. 8-10.)

Thus, Petitioner is ordered to file the entire agreement between the parties as one exhibit.

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.)

Petitioner has not filed any proof that the neutral arbitrator served a copy of the award on Respondent.

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)

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.

The Court cannot discern whether the arbitrator provision filed as Exhibit 2 is part of an agreement between Petitioner and Respondent. Thus, the Court cannot determine if the agreement between the parties requires a specific manner of service of the Petition.

Given the deficiencies noted, the Court continues the hearing on the Petition. Petitioner is ordered to file the entire agreement between the parties, which contains the arbitration provision, and proof that the neutral arbitrator served the award, issued on November 16, 2020, on both parties.

Moreover, while, an arbitrator or the Court may correct an arbitration award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1284 and 1285, Petitioner has not presented any authority regarding an arbitrator’s ability to issue a post-arbitration award. Accordingly, Petitioner is ordered to file supplemental papers demonstrating that the arbitrator had the authority to issue a “Post Arbitration Subsequent Award of Arbitrator Upon Default.”

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.