Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 20SMCV00985, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20SMCV00985 Hearing Date: February 7, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Robinson v. Radnet
Management, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: 20SMCV00985
MOTION: Defendants’
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition to
Vacate Arbitration Award
HEARING DATE: 02/07/2024
Background
On July 24, 2020, Plaintiff
Stephanie Robinson filed a complaint against Defendants Radnet Management,
Inc., Susan Alexander, Cheryl Sullivan, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, for
(1) Wrongful Termination Against Public Policy; (2) Wrongful Termination in
Violation of Implied Employment Agreement; (3) Racial and Color Discrimination;
(4) Disability Discrimination; (5) Workplace Harassment; (6) Retaliation for
Engaging in Protected Activity; (7) Failure to Provide Workplace Environment
Free from Harassment Discrimination and/or Retaliation; (8) Denial of Reasonable
Accommodation; and (9) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic
Relations.
On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff and
Defendants filed a Joint Stipulation and Order to Submit Matter to Arbitration.
The Court granted the joint stipulation the same day.
On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed
this operative First Amended Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award.
On November 1, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition. On November 1, 2023,
Defendants also filed this Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. No opposition
has been filed.
Legal
Standard
Confirm Arbitration Award
Any party to an arbitration may petition the court to
confirm an arbitration award. (CCP § 1285.) If a petition to confirm an
arbitration award is duly served and filed, the court must confirm the award as
made, unless the court corrects or vacates the award pursuant to a response to
the petition or a petition to correct or vacate the award. (CCP § 1286; Valsan
Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818
[no authority to alter terms of award absent petition to correct]; see Thriftimart, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 421, 425-26 [an objection to the granting of a motion to
confirm an award is equivalent to a motion to vacate].)
A petition to confirm an arbitration award must set forth
the substance of or attach the arbitration agreement, include the name of the
arbitrator, and attach a copy of the award and the written opinion of the
arbitrator, if any. (CCP § 1285.4.) The petition must be served no earlier than
10 days, but no later than 4 years, after service of the award on the
petitioner. (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4.) If the agreement sets forth a method of
service for the petition, that method holds. (CCP §1290.4(a).) If the arbitration
agreement does not set forth a method, service shall be made in the manner
provided by law for service of summons in an action if the party has not
appeared. (CCP § 1290.4(b).) If the party upon whom the petition is to be made
has appeared, service can be made by noticed motion. (CCP § 1290.4(c).)
A response to a petition must be served and filed within 10
days after service of the petition. The time for response may be extended by an
agreement in writing between the parties or for good cause by order of the
court. (CCP § 1290.6.)
Every
presumption is in favor of the arbitration award. (Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co. v. United Rubber Workers of America (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 444,
449.) CCP section 1286.2 provides that “the court shall vacate the award if the
court determines any of the following: (1) [t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue
means.” (CCP § 1286.2(a).) The defendant moving for vacation of an arbitration
award due to corruption, fraud, or other undue means must demonstrate a nexus
between the award and the alleged undue means used to attain it. (Pour Le
Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 833-34.)
Vacate/Correct
Arbitration Award
A request to
vacate or correct an arbitration award must be filed and served within 100 days
of service of the award. (CCP § 1288.) “In order to comply with the purpose of
expeditious resolution of disputes through arbitration, time limits in which to
challenge arbitration awards must be strictly enforced.” (Knass v. Blue
Cross of California
(1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 390, 395.) Service of a petition within California shall
be made in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons. (CCP
§1290.4(b)(1).) The timing requirements for filing and serving a petition to
vacate an arbitration award are jurisdictional. (Abers v. Rohrs (2013)
217 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1212; Knass, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at 395[section 1288’s
timing requirements must be strictly enforced]; Santa Monica Coll. Faculty
Assn. v. Santa Monica Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 538, 545 [“the
filing and service deadline for a petition to vacate is jurisdictional;
noncompliance deprives a court of the power to vacate an award unless the party
has timely requested vacation.”].) Section 1286.4 expressly limits the
court's power to vacate an award, stating that a “court may not vacate an award
unless… a petition or response requesting the award be vacated has been duly
served and filed…”
Judicial review of private arbitration awards is generally
limited to the¿statutory grounds for vacating or correcting an award. (ECC
Capital Corp. v. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP¿(2017) 9 Cal.App.5th
885, 899-900.) These grounds include:
(1) the
award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;
(2) there
was corruption in any of the arbitrators;
(3) the
rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral
arbitrator;
(4) the
arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without
affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted;
(5) the
rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the
arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor
or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the
controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions
of this title; or
(6) an
arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time
required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator
was then aware, or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified
in section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify
himself or herself as required by that provision.
(CCP § 1286.2(a).) “On its face, the statute leaves no
room¿for discretion. If a statutory ground for vacating the award exists, the
trial court must vacate the award.” (Ovitz v. Schulman (2005) 133
Cal.App.4th 830, 845.)
CCP section
1286.6 provides that the court “shall correct the award and confirm it as
corrected if the court determines that: [¶] (a) There was an evident
miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any
person, thing or property referred to in the award; [¶] (b) The arbitrators
exceeded their powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the
merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted; or [¶] (c) The award is
imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the
controversy.”
Analysis
Petition
to Vacate Arbitration Award
Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson petitions the Court to
vacate the arbitration award dated October 17, 2023, requiring her to pay
Defendant Radnet Management, Inc. $33,753.91. Plaintiff states on March 29,
2011, she and Defendant Radnet Management, Inc. entered into a written
arbitration agreement covering disputes of Harassment, Discrimination,
Retaliation under FEHA, and Wrongful Termination. Furthermore, Plaintiff states
that the arbitration hearing was held by Amy Semmel, Esq. of the American Arbitration
Association (“AAA”). Plaintiff argues the arbitration award was obtained by
corruption, fraud, and other unfair means. Plaintiff further argues the
arbitrator was corrupt, exceeded her authority, and the award cannot be fairly
corrected. Moreover, Plaintiff contends the misconduct of Ms. Semmel as a
neutral arbitrator substantially prejudiced her rights. Additionally, Plaintiff
argues Ms. Semmel should have disqualified herself after Plaintiff made a
demand that she do so.
Specifically, Plaintiff asserts there is a plethora of
disputed material facts, hence, as a matter of law, summary judgment should
have been denied. Plaintiff argues Ms. Semmel accepted Defendant Radnet
Management, Inc. facts over those in her declaration, which is entirely
improper, since all evidence is to be considered in a light most favorable to
the non-moving party. Plaintiff also contends Ms. Semmel should not have denied
her Motion for Leave to File a Cause of Action for Constructive Termination. Lastly,
Plaintiff contends Ms. Semmel was blatantly biased against her and her counsel
throughout the course of the proceedings.
In opposition, Defendant Radnet
Management, Inc. argues Plaintiff makes no showing under Section 1286.2 that
the arbitration award was obtained by fraud, corruption, misconduct, or other
means that would invalidate the award. Further, Defendant Radnet Management,
Inc. contends Plaintiff admits the basis for her petition is her belief that
the arbitrator (Ms. Semmel) made a mistake of law in her ruling on Defendant
Radnet Management, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant Radnet
Management, Inc. also contends Plaintiff does not allege any conduct on the
part of Defendant Radnet Management, Inc. or the arbitrator that amounts to
corruption, fraud, or other undue means in procuring the arbitration award.
Here, Plaintiff has not
provided evidence sufficient to support vacating the arbitration award.
Although Plaintiff requests vacating the arbitration award under Code of Civil Procedure Sections
1286.2(a)(1)-(2), Plaintiff presents no evidence of Defendant’s conduct that
amounts to corruption, fraud, or other unfair means to procure the arbitration
award. Similarly, Plaintiff request vacating the award on the basis that Ms.
Semmel was corrupt and engaged in misconduct that substantially prejudiced
Plaintiff’s rights. However, Plaintiff’s
argument is that the arbitrator did not consider the facts in her favor on the
Motion for Summary Judgment and improperly denied her leave to add a cause of
action.
In contrast to Plaintiff’s allegations, the arbitrator’s Ruling
on the Motion for Summary makes several references to the oral argument hearing
and legal analysis as to why the motion was denied, which demonstrates Ms.
Semmel fully heard the parties on the matter and offers a detailed explanation
of why it was denied. Furthermore, Ms. Semmel considered the moving papers,
opposition papers, reply papers, and oral argument in making her final ruling
on the Motion for Summary Judgment. This demonstrates she did not exceed her
authority as an arbitrator because she considered all of the relevant evidence
before her in making the final ruling. Additionally, Plaintiff provides no
facts or evidence to support her claims that Ms. Semmel was biased toward her
and her counsel of record that would necessitate her recusal as the neutral
arbitrator apart from their contention that Ms. Semmel would not grant her
leave to file an amended complaint to add the constructive termination claim. Finally,
the Court cannot review an arbitration award because of the arbitrator’s
alleged legal or factual error. (See EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours
of Hollywood, Inc.¿(2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063-64.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson’s Petition to
Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award is DENIED.
Petition
to Confirm Arbitration Award
As stated, there are no grounds presented by Plaintiff
justifying vacating the arbitration award.
As set forth below, the petition to confirm the award complies with all
statutory requirements, and therefore, must be granted.
Here, the petition does “(a) Set forth the substance of
or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner
denies the existence of such an agreement. (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators.
(c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of
the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) Defendants’ have also attached
a copy of the arbitration agreement. (Holloman Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Furthermore,
Defendants’ have indicated the name of the arbitrator that proceeded over this
matter was Amy Semmel, Esq. (Pet. 1:3-4.) Moreover, Defendants’ attached a copy
of arbitrator Semmel’s ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment and Final
Award. (Holloman Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. C-D.)
Accordingly, Defendants Radnet Management, Inc., Susan
Alexander, and Cheryl Sullivan’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.