Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 23STCP02590, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCP02590, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02590 Hearing Date: November 27, 2023 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2023

Case Name: WESTBON, INC dba BORO v. KRISTA ROWLAND

Case No.: 23STCP02590

Motion: Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Moving Party: Petitioner Westbon, Inc. dba Boro

Responding Party: None

Notice: OK

Recommended Ruling: Petitioner Westbon, Inc. dba Boro’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

Counsel for Petitioner is ordered to serve and electronically submit a proposed form of judgment consistent with this court's order within five (5) days of this Court's ruling.

BACKGROUND

On July 24, 2023, Petitioner Westbon, Inc. dba Boro (“Petitioner”) commenced this action by filing a Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondent Krista Rowland.

On July 24, 2023, the clerk filed a Notice of Hearing on Petition, informing the Petitioner that the hearing on the Petition had been set for November 27, 2023, at 8:30 AM in Department 25, Spring Street Courthouse.

On November 14, 2023, the Petitioner filed a Proof of Services of Summons, informing the Court that a process server personally served Respondent with the Summons, Petition, and Notice of Hearing on Petition, among other documents, on September 25, 2023.

Respondent’s opposition was due on November 9, 2023, nine (9) court days before the hearing. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) (“All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days …”).

However, no opposition has been filed as of November 20, 2023.

MOVING PARTY’S POSITION

The parties entered into a written loan agreement on or about May 4, 2021. The agreement contained an arbitration provision. On June 15, 2023, the parties attended arbitration. The dispute subject to arbitration was Respondent’s outstanding balance on the loan agreement, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. The arbitrator found in favor of the Petitioner, requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner $23,953.98. Petitioner now moves to confirm the arbitration award.

OPPOSITION

None.

REPLY

None.

ANALYSIS

I. MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

A. Legal Standard

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm … the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration ….” Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.

“The petition … 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 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., § 1285.4.

“If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made … unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.

Any response to the petition must be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.

“If an award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith. The judgment so entered has the same force and effect as, and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action of the same jurisdictional classification; and it may be enforced like any other judgment of the court in which it is entered, in an action of the same jurisdictional classification.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.

“The scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow. Courts may not review the merits of the controversy, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award, or the validity of the arbitrator's reasoning.” Dept. of Personnel Admin. v. Cal. Correctional Peace Officers Ass’n (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200 (emphasis added). “With limited exceptions, ‘“an arbitrator’s decision is not generally reviewable for errors of fact or law, whether or not such error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice to the parties.”’ [Citations.]” Ibid.

B. Discussion

The Court finds that the Petition has satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.5 by attaching a copy of the parties’ contract containing the agreement to arbitrate (Petition, ¶ 4(b); Attachment 4.b), setting forth the name of the arbitrator (¶ 6 (“Hon Linda L. Miller, Ret.”)), and submitting copies of the award and arbitrator’s written opinion (Pet. ¶ 8c; Attachment 8.c).

The Petition alleges the following. On May 4, 2021, the parties entered into a written loan agreement. Petition, ¶¶ 4(a), (5). The agreement contained an arbitration provision providing that the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute and that any judgment on the award made by the arbitrator may be entered into by any court having jurisdiction. Petition, ¶ 4(c); Attachment 4.c, pp. 4-6 (the Arbitration Provision section). A dispute arose concerning the outstanding balance Respondent owed under the loan agreement, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Petition, ¶ 5. On June 16, 2023, the parties arbitrated their dispute before a JAMS arbitrator (i.e., Hon. Linda L. Miller (Ret.)). Petition, ¶¶ 6, 7. On July 11, 2023, the final arbitration award was issued, requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner $23,953.98; the award consists of contract damages of $20,691.51, attorney’s fees of $3,103.72, and service of process costs of $158.75. Petition, ¶ 8; Attachment 8.c, pp. 6-7.)

Petitioner now moves for a judgment of $23,953.98 against the Respondent as awarded by the arbitrator.

The Court notes that the Petitioner served Respondent with the Petition on September 25, 2023. Proof of Service of Summons, filed November 14, 2023, Item 5a. Any response to the Petition had to be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6. As of November 20, 2023, no response to the Petition has been filed.

Accordingly, the Court finds the Petition procedurally proper, supported by evidence, and, therefore, grants the Petition.

II. CONCLUSION

Petitioner Westbon, Inc. dba Boro’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

Petitioner is ordered to serve and electronically submit a proposed form of judgment consistent with this court's order within five (5) days of this Court's ruling.

Moving party to give notice.