Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCP03908, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

CASE: Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons Southern California Health and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Sisakian Contracting Corp.

MOVING PARTY: Petitioners Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons Southern California Health and Welfare Fund, et al.

On June 6, 2023, Arbitrator Mark Burstein (“Arbitrator Burstein”) issued an arbitration award in favor Petitioners Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons Southern California Health and Welfare Fund; Board of Trustees of Southern California Pension Trust; Board of Trustees Eleven Counties Cement Masons Vacation Savings Plan; Board of Trustees Cement Masons Joint Apprenticeship Trust; and Board of Trustees Cement Masons Southern California Individual Retirement Account (Defined Contribution) Trust (collectively, “Petitioners”) and against Respondent Sisakian Contracting Corp. (“Sisakian”) in the principal sum of $2,845.77. The arbitration arose out of a dispute regarding the payment of fringe benefit contributions due under labor agreements between the parties. The arbitration award also directs Sisakian to pay accrued interest at the rate of 10%, all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs incurred, and court costs required to enforce the award.

On October 23, 2023, Petitioners filed a Verified Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Sisakian.

On November 16, 2023, Petitioners filed this motion for an order confirming the arbitration award, including attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioners seek a total judgment of $6,141.31, consisting of the principal arbitration award of $2,845.77, interest in the sum of $37.94, attorneys’ fees in the sum of $2,647.25, and costs in the sum of $611.05.

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 Civ. 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.)¿

Petitioners seek an order confirming the arbitration award issued on June 6, 2023, and awarding interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

An arbitrator’s award is enforceable only after being confirmed by a court of law. (O’Hare, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 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 Civ. Proc., § 1287.6.)¿ Thus, the court must first evaluate and confirm the initial arbitration award.¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4 states: “A petition under this chapter shall:

Here, Petitioners submit the written Final Award issued by Arbitrator Burstein. (Pet., Ex. 4.) Petitioners also submit a copy of the arbitration agreement between the parties. (Pet., Ex. 2.) Petitioners have satisfied the filing requirements.

B. Service of the Arbitration Award & Timeliness of Petition (CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4)¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 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.”¿ 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, Petitioners submit proof of service showing the Final Award was served by Arbitrator Burstein by certified mail on June 6, 2023. (Pet., Ex. 5.) This motion followed on November 16, 2023. The motion is timely.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, the statute governing proper service of this motion 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.¿

Here, Petitioners served Sisakian with a copy of this motion and notice of motion on November 16, 2023 by certified mail which is consistent with the parties’ agreement.¿ (See Pet., Ex. 2, ¶¶ B.5.1.6, B.5.1.8.) Petitioners demonstrate that the motion was properly served.¿

Based on the foregoing, the unopposed motion for an order confirming the arbitration award, including attorneys’ fees is GRANTED.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court