Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01443, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01443    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Diego Herrera v. Amenero Investment Group, et al. 

Defendants’ Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court DENIES Defendants’ petition to confirm arbitration award without prejudice. 

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

BACKGROUND 

This is a fraud case. On May 15, 2025, plaintiff Diego Herrera (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Amenero Investment Group dba Autovic Motors,[1] Veros Auto Credit Inc., Western Surety Company (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, action for rescission of sales contract for sale of goods pursuant to California Code section 1698, violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act – equitable and injunctive relief, violation of Vehicle Code section 11711, breach of contract, and fraud. 

On October 25, 2023, the parties stipulated to arbitration of this action. 

On March 25, 2025, Defendants filed a petition to confirm arbitration award. On March 26, 2025, Defendants gave amended notice of the hearing on the petition. Plaintiff did not respond to 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.) “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.” (Id., § 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.) “[T]he party seeking to enforce an award must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a valid arbitration contract exists.” (Toal v. Tardif (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1220 (Toal).) 

DISCUSSION 

            Defendants seek to confirm an arbitration award. Defendants allege that the signed arbitration award indicates it was served on Defendants on December 10, 2024. (Petition, ¶ 9, subd. (a).) However, Defendants allege that the arbitration award was made on January 13, 2025. (Petition, ¶ 8.(a).) Defendants then contend in their memorandum of points and authorities that the arbitration award was served on all parties on January 13, 2025. (Memo. Pts. & Auth. (3/26/25), 3:12-14.) The arbitration award is dated January 13, 2025, but does not state if or when it was served. (See Petition, Attach. 8(c).) The Court is therefore unable to tell whether the arbitration award was properly served, when it was purportedly served, or if the petition was served at least ten days after the signed arbitration award was served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.4.) 

            Even assuming for the sake of argument that the signed arbitration award and petition were properly served, the Court notes some other problems with the petition. Defendants ticked the box for paragraph 10, subdivision (c)(2), of the petition, which indicates that there are facts to support vacating the arbitration award, and requires an attachment labeled 10c(2), the latter of which is not attached to the petition. (See Petition, ¶ 10, subd. (c)(2).) Defendants also ticked the box for paragraph 10, subdivision (c)(3), which indicates that Defendants request a new arbitration hearing. (Petition, ¶ 10, subd. (c)(2).) The Court assumes Defendants likely ticked these boxes by mistake, but that is not for the Court to fix. 

            The petition is likely okay otherwise, as Defendants identified the arbitrator and provided a copy of the underlying agreement containing the arbitration clause, thereby satisfying the requirement to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4, subds. (a)-(b); Toal, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 1220; Petition, ¶ 6, Attach. 4(b).) Defendants also provided a signed copy of the arbitration award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4, subd. (a); Petition, Attach. 8(c).) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the petition without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendants’ petition to confirm arbitration award without prejudice. 

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