Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCP02167, Date: 2023-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02167    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, January 17, 2024

Case Name:                             FORWARD FINANCING, LLC v. MERIAD SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a THE BISSELL HOUSE BED AND BREAKFAST; WILLIAM HOYMAN, an Individual

Case No.:                                23STCP02167

Motion:                                   Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Moving Party:                         Petitioner Forward Financing, LLC

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    NO

Tentative Ruling:                    Petitioner Forward Financing’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      NO

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      NO

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       NO 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of January 03, 2024                  [ ] Late            [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of January 09, 2024                  [ ] Late            [X] None

BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2023, Arbitrator Bernard J. Bonn (the “Arbitrator”) issued an arbitration award (“the Award”) awarding Petitioners Forward Financing, LLC (“Petitioners”) damages of $22,672.52 to be paid by Respondents Meriad Solutions, Inc. d/b/a The Bissell House Bed and Breakfast (“Bissell House”), and William Hoyman (“Hoyman”). (collectively known as “Respondents”).

Petitioners filed the instant Petition for an Order Confirming Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) on June 20, 2023.

On October 24, 2023, the Court continued the hearing to November 27, 2023, to allow Counsel for the Petitioner to submit proper proof of service of the Arbitration Award.

On October 26, 2023, Petitioner provided Respondents both notice of the Petition and proof of service by mail of a copy of the Award. On November 27, 2023, the Court continued the hearing to January 17, 2024, citing deficiency of service of the arbitration award under CCP § 1283.6.  

No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Petitioner requests the Court to confirm the award totaling $22,672.52 representing the difference between the amount of $23,700.00 from future receipts Petitioners purchased from respondents and $5,802.48 which was paid under the agreement, plus $2,500.00 in Blocked Account Damages, and $2,275.00 representing the sum of $925.00 in administrative fees and $1,350.00 in arbitrator fees.

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

In its prior order the Court noted that Petitioner needed to supply supplemental briefing evidencing that the Arbitrator serviced the arbitration award on both Parties, to satisfy CCP § 1283.6. (11/27/23 Minute Order.)

 Here, the Court notes that since issuing its order Petitioner has not filed any supplemental briefing correcting the deficiency noted in its November 27, 2023, Minute Order. Accordingly, since the Petition does not satisfy all the requirements specified under CCP §§ 1285.4, 1290.4 ,1283.6, 1288, and 1288.4, the Court therefore DENIES the Petition without Prejudice.

III.       Conclusion

Petitioner Forward Financing’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.