Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV44903, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44903    Hearing Date: June 27, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the petitioning, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff Parviz Mohammady (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Joey Lynn King (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for negligence. 

On January 27, 2021, Defendant filed an answer. 

On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a petition to confirm arbitration award, to be heard on June 27, 2024. On May 24, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. 

Trial is currently scheduled for October 7, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiff asks the Court to confirm a purported $500,000.00 arbitration award against Defendant. 

Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the petition. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1285 provides: 

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1287.2 provides: 

“The court shall dismiss the proceeding under this chapter as to any person named as a respondent if the court determines that such person was not bound by the arbitration award and was not a party to the arbitration.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.2.)      

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s petition asserts that on June 30, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written agreement to arbitrate their dispute concerning liability for the car accident that occurred on February 13, 2020.  Although Section 4b of the Judicial Council form (ADR-106) on which Plaintiff submitted the petition requires the petitioner to attach a copy of the arbitration agreement, Plaintiff did not attach an agreement and has provided no other evidence that Defendant agreed to arbitration. 

The petition states that an arbitration took place on June 30, 2020 and arbitrator Sibyl Lipinsky made the following award: “Joey Lynn King 80% liable due to failing to maintain a proper lookout and improper turn. Finding amount $500,000.”  The petition asks the Court to confirm the arbitration award, enter judgment based on the award, and award Plaintiff interest from June 30, 2020 at the statutory rate and costs of suit according to proof.  

A document titled Arbitration Decision with a “publish date” of June 30, 2020 is attached to the petition as Exhibit A.  The parties are listed as “Progressive West Insurance Co (Joey King)” and “Interins Exchange of the Automobile Club (Parviz Mohammady).”  The document shows that Defendant’s insurance policy had limits of $500,000.00.  It does not show that the arbitrator ordered Defendant or her insurance company to pay Plaintiff $500,000.00 in damages. 

Defendant opposes the petition, arguing that the arbitration involved only Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s respective insurance companies.  Plaintiff and Defendant were not parties.  Defendant’s insurance policy had limits of $500,000.00 but the arbitrator awarded Plaintiff’s insurer less than $12,000.00 for property damage.  Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the petition under Code of Civil Procedure section 1287.2. 

In Plaintiff’s reply, Plaintiff argues that the June 30, 2020 arbitration award binds Defendant because she was in privity with her insurance company.  Plaintiff cites no supporting legal authority.  Yet Plaintiff asks the Court to sanction Defendant’s counsel for “advance[ing] . . . meritless defenses that knowingly convey false facts” and engaging in a “cover-up.”  (Reply p. 4.) 

“On its own motion, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate [Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7], subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b), unless, within 21 days of service of the order to show cause, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (c)(2).) 

The Court has described above the conduct by Plaintiff’s counsel that appears to violate Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b).  Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct appears to violate the statute because (1) the claims and other legal contentions in Plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award and reply are not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law and (2) the allegations and other factual contentions in Plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award and reply lack evidentiary support.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subds. (b)(2), (b)(3).) 

The Court directs Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause why they have not violated Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b), unless, within 21 days of service of this order to show cause, Plaintiff’s counsel withdraw or appropriately correct Plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award and reply. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court issues an order to show cause why Plaintiff’s counsel have not violated Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, subdivision (b).  The Court will set a date for the order to show cause hearing at the June 27, 2024 hearing.  The Court will discharge the order to show cause if, within 21 days of service of this order to show cause, Plaintiff’s counsel withdraw or appropriately correct Plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award and reply.

Hearing on the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award will be continued will be continued to the same date and time.   

The Court will give notice of this ruling.