Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCP02299, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling
Hearing Date: March 2, 2023
Case Name: Jiang, et al. v. Gorgy Engineering, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 21STCV16989
Matter: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
Moving Party: Defendants Gorgy Engineering, Inc. and Moheb Gorgy
Responding Party: Plaintiffs Victor Jiang and Ambrose Jiang
Notice: OK
Ruling: The Petition is granted.
Defendants to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly
encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Defendants Gorgy Engineering, Inc. and Moheb Gorgy seek to confirm an arbitration award in their favor issued by arbitrator Marilyn Klinger on October 7, 2022.
Code Civ. Proc. § 1285 provides in relevant part, “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.”
Code Civ. Proc. § 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.”
Code Civ. Proc. § 1286 states, “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.”
“The trial court has but four courses of conduct once a confirmation proceeding is initiated: 1) to confirm, 2) to correct and confirm, 3) to vacate, 4) to dismiss, where a respondent is not a party to the award or is not bound by the arbitration agreement.” (United Bhd. of Carpenters etc., Loc. 642 v. Demello (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 838, 840.)
The subject award is as follows: “1. Jiang take nothing on its petition. 2. Gorgy take nothing on its counterclaim for compensation for engineering fees. 3. Gorgy is awarded $6,259.14 as damages in attorney’s fees incurred in compelling arbitration. 4. The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association totaling $3,700.00 shall be borne by Jiang, and the compensation of the arbitrator totaling $1,250.00 shall be borne by Jiang. Therefore, Jiang is to pay Gorgy, an amount of $2,475.00. 5. There is no attorney’s fees provision in the three contracts such that the Arbitrator is not awarding attorney’s fees. 6. The Arbitrator is not awarding pre-ruling interest.”
Plaintiffs Victor Jiang and Ambrose Jiang argue that the subject award should be vacated because there was no basis to award Defendants attorneys’ fees—as damages—for compelling arbitration. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that (1) none of the agreements between the parties contains a fee provision; (2) Defendants did not timely request fees as damages, only doing so in their closing brief; (3) the parties agreed to apply California law, but “[a]ll the cases that both the Defendants and Arbitrator relied on were from District Courts discussing law from states other than California”; (4) the foregoing constitutes some kind of fraud, corruption, excess power, and miscalculation of award; (5) Defendants waived the right to seek fees; and (6) confirming the award would result in violations of the due process and equal protection clauses of both the U.S. and California Constitutions.
Plaintiffs’ arguments lack merit. Defendants requested fees as damages in their April 2022 counterclaim (Biller Decl., Exhibit 5.) In June 2022, Plaintiffs acknowledged this argument in a filing. Further, the arbitrator awarded fees by analogizing to the situation in which fees are awarded for breach of a forum-selection clause. Notably, “errors of law committed by the arbitrator, no matter how gross, are not grounds for challenging the arbitrator's award under California law. [ ] [Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 C4th 1, 11, 10 CR2d 183, 188; Richey v. AutoNation, Inc. (2015) 60 C4th 909, 916, 182 CR3d 644, 648-649; Baize v. Eastridge Cos. (2006) 142 CA4th 293, 300-302, 47 CR3d 763, 768-769]”. (Cal. Prac. Guide Alt. Disp. Res. Ch. 5-J.) There is also nothing to indicate that the arbitrator applied anything contrary to California law.
The Petition is granted because Defendants have attached Klinger’s award, as well as the underlying agreement to arbitrate. (Petition, Exhibits 4b, 8c; Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.4.) The objections are overruled.
Defendants to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Case Number: 22STCP02299 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: 20
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kevin C. Brazile