Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 23AHCV00452, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23AHCV00452    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

Michael Mojaver,

 

                                            Plaintiff,

vs.

Dana Roberts and CW Driver, LLC,

 

 

                                           Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

Case No.: 23AHCV00452

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

 

Date:   March 22, 2024

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

 

 

I.        INTRODUCTION

This is an action involving a contractual dispute. Plaintiff Michael Mojaver (Mojaver) alleges that he entered into a contract with Defendants Dana Roberts and CW Driver, LLC (collectively Defendants), where he agreed to do some construction work and Defendants agreed to pay for the construction work. The construction was a Public Works project at Santa Monica Community College District’s AET Campus & Parking Structure A located at 1660 Stewart Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404. The five causes of action set forth in the Complaint allege: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Promissory Estoppel, (3) Unjust Enrichment, (4) Quantum Meruit, and (5) Open Book Account. The complaint also alleges that Mojaver has tried twice to file arbitration claims, but that American Arbitration Association (AAA) was unable to provide a neutral arbitrator.

          Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the first arbitration. As to the second arbitration, the Court granted a motion to stay the court case pending the outcome of the second arbitration. (6/29/23 Minute Order, 11/9/23 Notice of Ruling.)

The arbitration took place in October of 2023. The arbitrator issued her final award on January 4, 2024, ruling that nothing was due to either party (on either Plaintiff’s claim or Defendants’ counterclaim).

Now before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed petition to confirm the arbitration award. As the petition is timely and all procedural requirements are met, it is granted.   

 

          II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

          Defendants’ request for judicial notice

          Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the following: (17) Plaintiff Michael Mojaver’s 3/2/23 Complaint in this action, including the narrative attachment labeled “Complaint for Damage”; (18) Defendants’ 6/1/23 Motion for Stay of Proceedings; (19) Defendants’ 6/23/23 Reply To Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Stay Action Pending Completion of Arbitration, Memorandum Of Points And Authorities, Declaration of Kerry D. Christoph and (20) Plaintiff Michael Mojaver’s 6/27/23 Response to Defendant’s Rebuttal Against Plaintiff’s Respond to Motion to Stay.

          Though it is not necessary to take judicial notice of papers already in the court file, the requests are granted.  (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) (Evid. Code § 453; Scott v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 754-755.)

          Accordingly, judicial notice is taken of Exhs. 17-20.

 

 

III.     LEGAL STANDARD

          Code Civ. Proc. § 1288 et seq. provides that a petition to confirm an arbitration award must be served and filed within 4 years after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on petitioner. No petition may be filed until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award on petition. (CCP § 1288.4.)

          Section 1286 requires courts to confirm an award unless a competing petition identifies grounds to correct or vacate the award: “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (Bolding added.)

          If an award is confirmed, “Judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith.” (CCP § 1287.4.)

 

IV      DISCUSSION

          Defendants have timely filed this petition to confirm the arbitration award more than 10 days after, and fewer than 4 years from, the date a signed copy of the order on the award was served. Per the petition, the signed award was served on January 5, 2024. (Petition p. 2 Item 9.) Defendants attach a copy of the arbitration agreement, the name of the arbitrator and the arbitrator’s award. (Attachment 4(b) to Petition-Arbitration Agreement; Petition p. 2 Item 6- Arbitrator’s name; Attachment 8(c) to Petition- Arbitrator’s Award.)

Plaintiff has been provided with notice of this petition; but no opposition has been filed. Plaintiff has also not filed a motion to correct or to vacate the arbitration award.

 

 

 

 

V.       ORDER

          The Petition to confirm arbitration award is granted. Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order, and to lodge and serve an appropriate proposed Judgment within 10 days.

 

 

 

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT