Judge Kevin C. Brazile, Case Number: 25STCP00065, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULINGS

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE, DEPARTMENT 20 - JUDGE KEVIN C. BRAZILE

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling without appearing at the hearing by emailing Dept. 20 as soon as possible after reviewing a posted tentative. Though the Court makes every effort to post tentatives at least a day ahead of the hearing, this cannot be guaranteed due to the volume of motions. The email address is smcdept20@lacourt.org. In the subject line include:

1) The name and number of the case;
2) The word "SUBMITTING" or “NOT SUBMITTING” in all caps; and
3) The date of hearing.

In the body of the email include your name, contact information, and the party you represent (i.e. Defendant/moving party; Plaintiff/opposing party). Include all other parties on the email by "cc". Do not include any comments, questions or other information on your email.

PLEASE DO NOT call the court to submit on the tentative or to confirm receipt of your email. If you follow the instructions above, you will receive an automatic reply to your email confirming receipt of your email. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date, the court will sign applicable orders/judgments, if any, and the final ruling will be posted online with the minute order. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side by 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 motion.

Tentative rulings are not invitations nor opportunities, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

_________________________ * ______________________________

RULES ON USING EMAIL THE COURT

No ex-parte communications via email. Always copy all parties in all emails to Court.

Do not use email to file documents in Court. All documents must be filed in the Clerk’s office. Emails are not part of the official Court record. Do not use the email for any other purpose other than submitting/not submitting on tentative rulings or as ordered by the Court. Do not "cc" the Court on emails among the attorneys, parties or others. Do not use the email to ask questions regarding a case. For frequently asked questions go to the Court Information for Department 20 at www.lacourt.org.
The Court will not respond to inappropriate emails.

WARNING: Inappropriate use or misuse of the Court’s email or violation of these or other rules may result in sanctions, including blocking receipt of emails by that sender, after the first misuse/violation.

Ruling: Petitioner Tang’s Petition to Confirm and Correct Arbitration Award is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

Petitioner Lach Tang seeks to confirm and correct the arbitration award issued by the Contractors State License Board Arbitration Program on October 17, 2023. The arbitration award ordered the “Respondent” to pay the “Complainant” $31,377.82 and ordered “Respondent” to remove Mechanic’s Lien No. 2023000002548.

Petitioner Tang asks that the Court confirm the arbitration award. Petitioner Tang also asks that the Court correct the award by naming additional parties as judgment debtors/respondents on the arbitration award. Petitioner Tang asks that S&L Construction and Shawn Liu as Respondents on the arbitration award.

“Any party to an arbitration which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (CCP §1285.) “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.” (CCP §1285.4.)

“Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to ‘confirm, correct or vacate the award.’ Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: It may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.” (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.)

“Subject to Section 1286.8, the court, unless it vacates the award pursuant to Section 1286.2, shall correct the award and confirm it as corrected if the court determines that: (a) There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award…” (CCP §1286.6(a).) “The court may not correct an award unless: (a) A petition or response requesting that the award be corrected has been duly served and filed…” (CCP §1286.8(a).)

“A petition to confirm an award shall be served and filed not later than four years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. A petition to vacate an award or to correct an award shall be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner.” (CCP §1288.)

Petitioner named three Respondents in his Petition to Confirm and Correct Arbitration Award: Shaw Liu, S&L Construction and Landscaping Service Corp. d/b/a Glamscape and Glamscape, Inc. Petitioner filed proofs of service as to each of these Respondents as follows: (1) S&L Construction and Landscaping Service Corp. by personal service on March 7, 2025 (filed on March 7, 2025); (2) Glamscape Inc. by personal service on March 4, 2025 (POS filed on March 6, 2025); and (3) Shawn Liu by personal service on February 18, 2025 (POS filed on March 6, 2025).

Respondents were required to file a response to the petition within 10 days after service of the petition, as they were served within California by personal service. As of March 17, 2025, no responses have been filed.

The arbitrator’s award was served on October 17, 2023. Petitioner’s request to correct had to be filed on January 30, 2024, 100 days after service of the arbitrator’s award, plus 5 days for mailing. Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm and Correct was filed on January 3, 2025. The Petition was not served on the Respondents until February and March 2025. Petitioner’s request to correct is therefore untimely.

However, the deadline is not jurisdictional. (Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5^th 932, 952, 956.) Respondents have also raised no objection based on untimeliness thereby waiving any such objection. The untimeliness of Petitioner’s petition is therefore waived and no bar to hearing the Petition to Correct on the merits.

Since the Respondents were served with the original petition, Petitioner filed additional evidence, including revised declarations increasing the amount of costs and interest sought, and a supplemental memo of points and authorities. Petitioner failed to provide proof that all of these additional documents were served by personal service.

Petitioner requests that the arbitration award be corrected pursuant to CCP §1286.6(a). A court can only correct an “evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the reward.” (CCP §1286.6(a).) An “evident mistake” “must appear on the face of the award or be so readily apparent from the documentation in the case that explanation by proofs is not necessary.” (Severtson v. Williams Construction Co. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 86, 94 (discussing what qualifies as an “evident” miscalculation under CCP §1286.6(a).)

Petitioner asks that the Court correct the award by adding S&L Construction and Shawn Liu as “Respondents.” However, the failure to include these two entities as Respondents obligated under the arbitration award is not an “evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the reward.” Petitioner is not claiming a mistake in any description of a person, thing or property. Petitioner is arguing that S&L Construction and Liu were erroneously excluded from the award based on the evidence. Petitioner claims the evidence establishes that (1) S&L Construction was the contract signatory and (2) S&L Construction and Glamscape, Inc., the named Respondent in the arbitration award, are Shawn Liu’s alter egos. Petitioner’s request to correct therefore relies on “proof” and the failure to include Liu and S&L Construction in the award was not an “evident mistake.”

“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.” (CCP §1285.4.)

A copy of the arbitration award is attached as Attachment 8(c) to the arbitration award. (Petition, Attachment 8(c).) Petitioner attaches an unauthenticated copy of the arbitration agreement as Exhibit A. (Petition, Ex. A.) Petitioner also submits the name of the arbitrator, David Schlueter. (Petition, Item 6.)

· Petitioner’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities is incomprehensible. Petitioner also includes apparently irrelevant details in his memorandum of points and authorities, including details about Shawn Liu’s threatening conduct.

· Petitioner originally requested statutory interest on the arbitration award from October 17, 2023, costs in the amount of $1,456.97 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,000. (Petition, Item 10(d)-f.) However, Petitioner has increased the amount of interest and costs and supported the increased interest and costs with multiple declarations. Petitioner has not amended the Petition to reflect these new amounts, nor has Petitioner provided the Court with proof that the multiple amended declarations and supplemental documents have been served by personal service on the Respondents.

· Petitioner includes a request for $5000 in attorney’s fees. Petitioner claims he is entitled to these fees as “equitable relief” and as CCP §128.5 sanctions. Petitioner fails to provide any authority allowing for attorney’s fees as equitable relief on a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. Petitioner failed to file a separate motion seeking CCP §128.5 sanctions per CCP §128.5(f)(1)(A). More fundamentally, Petitioner is in pro per and fails to provide any evidence that he has incurred attorney’s fees as a reasonable expense due to Respondents’ bad faith actions or tactics under CCP §128.5.

· The arbitration award itself is ambiguous as to who the Complainant and Respondents are. (Petition, Attachment 8(c).) The document does not define who the Complainant and Respondent(s) are, nor is there any evidence submitted, such as the Complaint in the arbitration proceeding, from which the identities of the parties to the arbitration can be gleaned.

· The amount of the arbitration award to be confirmed as a judgment is also unclear. The Petition seeks confirmation of the arbitration award and entry of judgment in the amount of $16,377.82 based on the arbitration award amount of $31,377.82 less the $15,000 bond payment. (Petition, Item 10(g).) The arbitration award indicates, however, “Respondent shall pay the Complainant the Sum of $25,000.00 per statutory limitations.” (Petition, Attachment 8(c).) The arbitration award also lists “TOTAL: $31,377.82.” (Petition, Attachment 8(c). In his Fifth Supplemental Declaration filed on March 10, 2025, Petitioner represents that the arbitration award was actually $25,000, and Petitioner has already received $15,000 from the bond and $10,000 from Hai Xiao. (Supplemental Points and Authorities filed on March 10, 2025, Fifth Supplemental Declaration, ¶¶2 and 4.) However, Petitioner claims there is still an outstanding principal balance on the arbitration award in the amount of $6,377.82, which assumes the arbitration award was $31,377.82. Simply put, it is unclear what Petitioner is trying to confirm as a judgment because it is unclear what the arbitration award was.

Despite these defects, Petitioner has fulfilled the statutory requirements for confirmation of the arbitration award. Having done that the Court must confirm the arbitration award and enter judgment thereon. (Valencia v. Mendoza (2024) 103 Cal.App.5^th 427, 442.) Considering the defects raised by the Court above, the Petition is granted as follows:

· Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award is granted in part and denied in part.

· The principal judgment amount has been fully paid based on the testimony of Petitioner. (Supplemental Points and Authorities filed on March 10, 2025, Fifth Supplemental Declaration, ¶¶2 and 4.)

· Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees as stated in the Petition is denied.

· Petitioner’s request for costs as stated in the Petition is denied. Based on Petitioner’s Declaration of Costs, he is seeking litigation costs that were not incurred in this litigation, as they predate the filing of this petition. (Petition, Tang Declaration of Costs, PDF pg. 68/78.) The Court may only award costs incurred in this juridical proceeding. (CCP §1293.2.)

· The judgment for $25,000 shall therefore reflect post-arbitration award payments totaling $25,000, leaving an outstanding balance of zero. Petitioner to file an Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of Judgment after Judgment is entered.

Petitioner Tang’s Petition to Confirm and Correct Arbitration Award is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

· Petitioner’s Petition to Correct the Arbitration Award is DENIED. Petitioner fails to identify and establish an “evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the reward.” (CCP §1286.6(a).)

· Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

· Judgment is entered in the amount of $25,000 against Glamscape, Inc.

The principal judgment amount has been fully paid based on the testimony of Petitioner. (Supplemental Points and Authorities filed on March 10, 2025, Fifth Supplemental Declaration, ¶¶2 and 4.)

· Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees as stated in the Petition is denied.

· Petitioner’s request for interest is denied. Petitioner’s requested interest in the Petition is based on an incorrect amount. Petitioner’s interest calculations are based on an arbitration award amount of $31,377.82. The correct arbitration award amount is $25,000 based on the arbitration award attached as Attachment 8(c) and Petitioner’s statements in the Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed on 3/10/25. Petitioner does not provide a declaration in support of interest based on the correct arbitration award amount. Pre-judgment, post-arbitration award interest is recoverable pursuant to Civil Code §3287(a), not CCP §685.010. (Tenzera, Inc. v. Osterman (2012) 205 Cal.App.4^th 16; Pierotti v. Toran (2000) 81 Cal.App.4^th 17; Britz, Inc. v. Alfa-Laval Food & Dairy Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4^th 1085, 1106.)