Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 23STCP00652, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCP00652, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00652 Hearing Date: February 15, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Thursday, February 15, 2024

Case Name: MICHAEL SANDERS, et al. v. OREN BADLER, et al.

Case No.: 23STCP00652

Motion: Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Moving Party: Petitioners Michael Sanders, Trisha Atkinson

Responding Party: None

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Petitioners Michael Sanders and Trisha Atkinson’s Petition to Confirm Contractual 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: None filed as of February 01, 2024 … [ ] Late … [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 07, 2024 … [ ] Late … [X] None

BACKGROUND

On May 24, 2022, Arbitrator Kathy Vogdes, Esq. (the “Arbitrator”) issued an arbitration award (the “Award”) in the amount of $25,000 for Petitioners Michael Sanders (“Sanders”) and Trisha Atkinson (“Atkinson”) (collectively “Petitioners”) and against Respondents Oren Badler (“Badler”) and OB Floors, Inc. (“OB Floors”), (collectively “Respondents”).

On March 1, 2023, Petitioners, in propria persona, filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”) against Respondents.

On June 16, 2023, Petitioner Sanders filed a Request to Postpone Trial in the form of a sworn declaration, indicating that he had “to travel out of the country to act as a personal caregiver and power of attorney for an ailing parent.”

On June 27, 2023, Petitioner Sanders filed proofs of personal service on Oren Badler for the Request for Postponement.

On July 5, 2023, the Court noted that the Petition listed the Van Nuys Courthouse East address, instead of the address for the Spring Street Courthouse. Pursuant to the request of Petitioner Sanders (erroneously requesting continuance of trial rather than the hearing), the Court continued the hearing to August 16, 2023, and ordered the moving party to give notice.

On August 16, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition because there was no indication that Petitioner had served Respondents with a notice of continuance. The Court subsequently gave notice to Petitioner Sanders and Respondent Badler.

On September 18, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition to October 24, 2023, so that a legible copy of the Home Improvement Contract could be submitted. The court also noted that Petitioner had not presented evidence that a neutral arbitrator served a copy of the Award on the parties. Petitioners were ordered to give notice. Petitioners failed to file proof that notice of the continuance was served on Respondents.

On October 24, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition to November 30, 2023, so Petitioner could serve Notice of Hearing on the Petition and the Petition on both Respondents. Petitioners were also ordered to provide proof that the Arbitrator served the Award on Respondents in accordance with CCP section 1283.6.

On November 14, 2023, Petitioner requested to postpone the hearing until December 14, 2023, and provided a declaration regarding service of the Award by the Arbitrator on Respondents. On November 30, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Petition to February 15, 2024, ordering Petitioners to provide proof of service of the Petition on OB Floors.

On January 22, 2024, Petitioners requested dismissal of Respondent OB Floors from the case without prejudice, and the Court entered dismissal on January 24, 2024.

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Petitioners move to confirm the arbitration award they obtained against Respondents in the amount of $25,000.00 on May 24, 2022, and enter judgment thereon. Petitioners hired Respondents to perform renovations on their home. Petitioners claimed in arbitration that Respondents’ work was substandard. Petitioners filed their arbitration claim against Respondents pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the parties’ Home Improvement Contract.

OPPOSITION

No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I. Legal Standard

“Any party to an arbitration award in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.) “Regardless of the particular relief granted, 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.) “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.) “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.)

II. Discussion

A. Filing Requirements (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 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 the agreement.

(b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.4.) “A response to a petition under this chapter may request the court to dismiss the petition or to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1285.2.)

Here, Petitioners have satisfied the requirements of CCP section 1285.4 by setting forth the substance of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate with the Petition. (Pet., 2.) Petitioners provide the Court with a copy of the sales agreement between the parties which includes the relevant arbitration agreement. (See. Attachment. 4(b).) Petitioners set forth the Arbitrator’s name, Kathy Vogdes, Esq., and attach a copy of the Arbitrator’s award of $25,000.00 in Petitioners’ favor along with a letter indicating the award is fully executed. (See Attachment 8(c).) Respondents have not filed any response requesting the Court to dismiss the petition or to confirm, correct or vacate the award. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioners have satisfied CCP section 1285.4.

B. Service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc. § 1290.4)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4 states, in relevant 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.

(2) Service outside this State shall be made by mailing the copy of the petition and notice of hearing and other papers by registered or certified mail. Personal service is the equivalent of such service by mail. Proof of service by mail shall be made by affidavit showing such mailing together with the return receipt of the United States Post Office bearing the signature of the person on whom service was made…”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4(a)&(b).)

In our prior orders, the Court noted that the two proofs of service filed on June 27, 2023 were not proper as Petitioners did not provide Respondents with a copy of the Petition, and more specifically neither proof of service indicated that Respondent OB Floors was ever properly served with a copy of the Petition thus failing to comply with section 1290.4. (10/24/2023 Minute Order, p. 5.) The Court notes, however, that Respondent OB Floors was dismissed from the action on January 24, 2023. Based on a review of the June 27, 2023 proof of service, service rendered on Respondent Badler does comply with section 1290.4 subsection (a) as it did include a copy of the Petition. Specifically, the proof of service provides the following documents were served: “ADR-106, Court Filing.pdf, Notice of Case Assignment Superior Court.pdf, Notice of hearing.pdf, superiorcourt.pdf, picture of Oren.pdf.” (6/27/23 Proof of Service) ADR-106 is the form designation of the Petition itself. Thus, Petitioners have properly served the Petition on Respondent Badler.

C. Service of the Arbitration Award & Timeliness of Petition (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.6.) Additionally, 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 on the petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.)

In its prior order, the Court noted that the Award did not include proof of service or any other indication demonstrating the Arbitrator properly served a copy of the award on the parties. (10/24/23 Minute Order, p. 5.) Petitioner subsequently filed a declaration on November 14, 2023. (11/14/23Trisha Atkinson Declaration.) Petitioners declared that FairClaims sent a reply to their November 07, 2023, email communication on November 13, 2023, declaring that the email they sent Petitioners on March 24, 2022, was a true and correct copy of the email sent to both parties. (Atkinson Declaration ¶ 4., Exhibit B.) The Court notes that Petitioners attached a copy of the email communications between Petitioners and FairClaims. (Atkinson Declaration, See Exhibit B.) The emails show that the Award was sent to both Petitioners and Respondents and are sufficient to show compliance with CCP section 1283.6.

The Court further noted in its November 30, 2023, Minute Order that Petitioners comply with CCP sections 1288 and 1288.4 as it related to Respondent Badler. (11/30/23 Minute Order.) Petitioners properly filed this petition seeking a judgment confirming the award on March 01, 2023. (Pet.) Petitioner then properly served Respondent Badler on June 27, 2023. The award was served to the parties on May 24, 2022. Thus, approximately ten months lapsed since the award was served and when Petitioners filed the Petition and served Respondent Badler in compliance with sections 1288 and 1288.4. (See. Petition. See Also 06/27/2023 Proof of Service.) However, the Court noted that service was not properly made on Respondent OB Floors for the reasons stated in section B of its November 30, 2023, order. (11/30/23 Minute Order.) Thus, the Court found that Petitioner had not complied with CCP sections 1288 and 1288.4 with respect to Respondent OB Floors.

The Court notes that since issuing its previous order, Respondent OB Floors has been dismissed from the matter without prejudice. Thus, since the Court has previously found that the service requirements were met as to Respondent Badler, the Court finds that the Petition satisfies the requirements under CCP §§ 1288 and 1288.4.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition.

II. Conclusion

Petitioners Michael Sanders and Trisha Atkinson’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.