Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 23STCP03079, Date: 2023-12-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCP03079, Date: 2023-12-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP03079 Hearing Date: February 6, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2024

Case Name: WD CONTRACTOR SERVICES COMPANY. v. SILVIA MORENO

Case No.: 23STCP03079

Motion: Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Moving Party: Petitioner WD Contractor Services Co.

Responding Party: Respondent Silvia Moreno

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Petitioner WD Contractor Services Co.’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: Filed January 19, 2024 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 30, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None

BACKGROUND

On December 22, 2021, Arbitrator Daniel Smith (the “Arbitrator”) issued an arbitration award (the “Award”) in the amount of $8,999.22 for Petitioner WD Contractor Services Co. (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent Silvia Moreno (“Respondent”).

On August 23, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award. Respondent filed a response requesting the Court correct the award on December 01, 2023. On December 27, 2023, the Court on its own motion continued the hearing on the Petition, ordering Petitioner to file and serve supplemental papers addressing deficiencies with service of the Award by the Arbitrator.

On January 17, 2024, Petitioner filed supplemental briefing for the Petition. Respondent filed exhibits in opposition. No reply has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Petitioner requests the Court to confirm the award totaling $8,999.22. Petitioner additionally seeks an award of interest at the statutory rate and cost of the suit.

OPPOSITION

In opposition, Respondent alleges that the award should be corrected because she has already paid out a total of $9,108.17. As a result, Petitioner owes Respondent $108.95. Respondent further alleges that Petitioner and the Contractors State Board have rendered improper service as both have rendered service to an address from which Respondent no longer receives mail.

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, Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of CCP section 1285.4 by setting forth the substance of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate within the Petition. (Pet. ¶ 4, Attachment 4(b).)

Petitioner sets forth the Arbitrator’s name, Daniel Smith., and attaches a copy of the Arbitrator’s award of $8,999.22 in Plaintiff’s favor along with a letter indicating the award is duly executed. (See Attachment 8(c).) The Award stipulates that the Petitioner is to be awarded the amount totaling $8,999.22 representing the difference between the amounts of $7,625.00 for water damage repairs performed by Petitioner that did not meet accepted trade standards, and $16,624.22 in outstanding balance owed per the insurance approved scope and cost of the repairs. (Id.) Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner follows 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).)

Here, the Petition and notice of hearing was served by substituted service on Respondent on September 03, 2023. (See. 09/11/23 Proof of Service by Substituted Service.) Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied CCP section 1290.4.

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.) California Rules of Court rule 3.825(b)(1) provides that the arbitrator must file the award with the clerk, with proof of service on each party to the arbitration. (CA ST CIVIL RULES Rule 3.825(b)(1)) The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Local Rules, rule 3.301(a) so provides that consistent with CRC 3.825 arbitrator can satisfy this by filing Form LAADR-014 with the award, and proof of service. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.301(a).) 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 Petition lacked proof of service indicating that the Arbitrator served a signed copy of the award on each party, and thus did not satisfy CCP § 1283.6. (12/27/23 Minute Order.)

The Court notes that since then Petitioner has subsequently filed a proof of service indicating that the Case Facilitator, Stephanie Felton, served the Award on both parties by certified mail on December 12, 2021. (01/17/24 Notice RE: Pet. to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award; Exh. B.) This sufficiently satisfies CCP § 1283.6 as the Arbitrator has properly served a copy of the award. Noting that the award was served on December 12, 2021, the Court finds that the Petition would be considered timely as it was filed more than 10 days after Petitioner was served with the award.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Petition satisfies CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4.

D. Challenge to the Award.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1285.2 provides that a response to a petition to confirm an arbitration award may request the court to dismiss the petition or to confirm, correct or vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.2.) The Code further provides in § 1285.8 that a response requesting such relief “shall set forth the grounds on which the request for such relief is based. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.8.) Moreover, the court may not either vacate or correct the award unless the petition or response was:

(a) … duly served and filed; or

(b) … duly served and filed and;

(1) All petitioners and respondents are before the court; or

(2) All petitioners and respondents have been given reasonable notice that the court will be requested at the hearing to vacate the award or that the court on its own motion has determined to vacate the award and all petitioners and respondents have been given an opportunity to show why the award should not be vacated.

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1286.4, 1286.8.)

The Court notes that in opposition to the Petition, Respondent argues that Petitioner was paid in full for his work, leaving an overpayment of $108.95. (Opp. p. 1.) Moreover, Respondent again asserts that she was never properly served with the arbitration award. (Id.)

The Court again notes the same deficiencies with Respondent’s opposition as it did in its 12/27/23 order. In so far as the response requests the Court to correct the award, Respondent does not supply the Court with proper grounds for correction under CCP § 1285.8. Here, Respondent alleges that the award amount is wrong. However, the Court notes that Respondent does not supply the Court with any admissible evidence such as authenticated documents, authenticated by a sworn declaration, or otherwise, that supports Respondent’s contention. The Court acknowledged that Respondent provides the Court with a copy of communications between Respondent and the AMCC Case Manager, and Respondent’s insurance company, and the U.S. Post office. However, as mentioned before, none of these documents are authenticated and would be considered inadmissible.

Moreover, Respondent again appears to misunderstand the purpose of a Petition to Confirm an Arbitration Award. “[I]t is the general rule that, with narrow exceptions, an arbitrator's decision cannot be reviewed for errors of fact or law.” (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.) “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.) Asking the Court to acknowledge the overpayment claim, essentially asks the Court to review the merits of the dispute and in turn review the award because of the Arbitrator’s factual error. This would not be proper grounds to challenge the award under CCP §§ 1285.2 and 1285.8, nor would review under this basis be proper as guided by case law. Thus, Respondent’s response is improper under CCP §§ 1285.2 and 1285.8.

Accordingly, because the Petition satisfies the requirements set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

II. Conclusion

Petitioner Contractor Services Co.’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.