Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCP00529, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCP00529    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Swift Financial, LLC, as Servicing Agent of WebBank v. Lumenos Technologies, et al. 

Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award 

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court DENIES the petition to confirm contractual arbitration award without prejudice. 

             Petitioner is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a contractual arbitration matter. On December 8, 2023, petitioner Swift Financial, LLC, as Servicing Agent for WebBank (Petitioner) filed a petition against respondents Lumenos Technologies, Inc., Matthew Laney (collectively, Respondents) and Does 1 to 10, to confirm an arbitration award issued on July 12, 2023 in the amount of $111,196.02. Respondents did not oppose the petition. 

LEGAL STANDARD

            “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) “[A] court, before granting a petition to compel arbitration, must determine the factual issue of ‘the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.’ [Citation.]” (Toal v. Tardif (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1219, italics added.)

“No petition may be served and filed under this chapter until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award upon the petitioner.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.4.) “A petition under this title shall be heard in a summary way in the manner and upon the notice provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except that not less than 10 days' notice of the date set for the hearing on the petition shall be given.” (Id., 1290.2.) 

DISCUSSION

            Petitioner seeks to confirm an arbitration award issued on July 12, 2023, in the amount of $111,196.02 against Respondents. (Petition, Attachment 8, subd. (c).) However, the Court notes that Petitioner did not file a proof of service of the petition on Respondents with the Court. Notice is required before the Court can rule substantively on the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204-1205 [trial court “lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question. [Citations].”]) Given Respondents’ lack of opposition to the Petition, it is unclear whether Petitioner ever served the petition on Respondents and whether the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the petition. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the petition. 

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES the petition to confirm contractual arbitration award without prejudice.