Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP03960, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP03960 Hearing Date: April 10, 2023 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: PETITION
TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner
Andrew James Stout
RESP. PARTY: Respondent Raymond James & Assoc.
Inc.
PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
(CCP § 1285, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner Andrew James Stout’s Petition
to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.
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: Filed on January 6, 2023. [ ] Late [
] None
REPLY: None filed as
of April 5, 2023. [ ]
Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On June 9, 2022, Arbitrators George
Herman Frisch, Robert D. Sussin, and Leslie Marie Hopp, through the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Dispute Resolution Services, issued a
ruling as a result of arbitration proceedings between Petitioner Andrew James
Stout (“Petitioner”), Respondent Raymond James & Associates, Inc. (“Raymond
James”), and certain third-party respondents.
(Pet. ¶¶ 6-8; Pet pp. 48-55 – Attach. 8(c).) The ruling recommends the expungement and
replacement of certain language in Petitioner’s records maintained by the
Central Registration Depository (“CRD”).
(See Pet. p. 52 – Attach. 8(c).)
On November 3, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”).
On January 6, 2023, Respondent filed a Response to the
Petition, indicating that it “takes no position on whether this Court should
confirm the arbitration award rendered in FINRA DR Case No. 21-00526.” (Response p. 1.)
On January 10, 2023, Petitioner filed an additional
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition.
On March 9, 2023, the Court noted certain deficiencies in
the Petition and continued the hearing.
(3-9-23 Minute Order.)
On March 14, 2023, Petitioner filed supplemental papers.
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 June 9, 2022, Arbitrators George
Herman Frisch, Robert D. Sussin, and Leslie Marie Hopp, through the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Dispute Resolution Services, issued a
ruling as a result of arbitration proceedings between Petitioner, Respondent,
and certain third-party respondents.
(Pet. ¶¶ 6-8; Pet pp. 48-55 – Attach. 8(c).)
Petitioner has attached copies of
arbitration agreements governing his relationship with Respondent. (Pet. pp. 4-47 – Attach. 4(b).) Petitioner has also attached a copy of the
award and set forth the names of the arbitrators – George Herman Frisch, Robert
D. Sussin, and Leslie Marie Hopp. (Pet. ¶ 6;
Pet. pp. 48-55 – 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.)
Petitioner indicates that the award
was served on Petitioner on June 9, 2022.
(Pet. ¶ 9.) On March 9, 2023, the
Court noted that there was no indication that a neutral arbitrator served a
copy of the award on each party. (3-9-23
Minute Order.) As a result, the Court
could not determine whether the Petition was filed timely. (Ibid.)
On March 14, 2023, Petitioner filed a
Supplemental Memorandum addressing the deficiencies noted by the Court. Petitioner argues that that according to FINRA
rules, the Director may serve the award on each party. (Supp. Mem. pp. 2-3.) Here, the Director did serve the award on all
parties, and thus, Petitioner has complied with § 1283.6. (Ibid).
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.
On March 9, 2023, the
Court noted that the arbitration agreements filed by Petitioner do not mandate a
specific form of service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing. (3-9-23 Minute Order.) The Court cited to Code of Civil Procedure § 1290.4(b) for the rule that: if no
form of service is prescribed by the arbitration provision and the parties
being served have not appeared in the proceeding, documents must be served in
the same “manner provided by law for the service
of summons in an action. (Ibid.) The Court found that the Petition, Notice
of Hearing, and supplemental documents were served on Respondent’s attorney by
mail and with acknowledgment of receipt of service, which did not comply with § 1290.4(b). (Ibid.; 12-13-22 Proofs of
Service.)
On March 14, 2023,
Petitioner filed proof that the Petition, Notice of Hearing, and supplemental
documents, including notice of continuance, were persoanlly served on
Respondent’s agent for service of process.
(3-14-23 Minute Order.) The Court
finds that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of §1290.4.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons,
Petitioner Andrew James Stout’s
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give
notice.