Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV00610, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV00610 Hearing Date: March 22, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Naeni v. Chrystal
Capital
CASE NO.: 22SMCV00610
MOTION: Motion
to Confirm Arbitration Award; Motion to Vacate Award
HEARING DATE: 3/22/2024
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.)
Vacate 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…”
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.) 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.)
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
The Court notes that Plaintiff does not provide any
declaration in support of her motion to vacate. Plaintiff simply appends
exhibits without any evidentiary foundation. The Court exercises its discretion
not to consider her unsupported record.
Analysis
Defendant Chrysler Capital moves to
confirm the arbitration award issued in the
parties’ arbitration before the American Arbitration
Association (“AAA”) pursuant to the California Arbitration Act and Federal Arbitration
Act. Plaintiff Ava Naeini opposes and moves to vacate the award.
On November 9, 2022, the Court
compelled Plaintiff’s claims to arbitration and stayed this action pending
completion of the arbitration. On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Demand for
Arbitration with the AAA pursuant to this Court’s Order and the Arbitration
Provision in her vehicle lease and lease extension. (Yu Decl., Ex. 3.) The AAA
initiated an arbitration entitled Ava Naeini v. Chrysler Capital, AAA Case No.
01-23-0002-0729 and appointed Robert M. Dawson as the Arbitrator. (Id., Exs. 4
& 5.) On September 22, 2023, the parties agreed to a telephonic evidentiary
hearing with a prior exchange of exhibits. (Yu Decl., Ex. 6.) On December 7,
2023, after the parties exchanged exhibits, the evidentiary hearing was held,
with Plaintiff appearing and testifying on her own behalf. (Id., ¶ 9.) Chrysler
Capital presented a witness at the evidentiary hearing who testified as to
Plaintiff’s payment history and the credit reporting for Plaintiff’s lease
account. (Id.) Plaintiff cross-examined Chrysler Capital’s witness. (Id.)
On December 29, 2023, the
Arbitrator issued an award against Plaintiff in favor of Defendant, which was
served on all parties on that same date. (Yu Decl., Ex. 7.) The arbitrator held
that the record established that there were no errors in Defendant’s credit
reporting regarding Plaintiff’s car loan. (Id.) In the award, the Arbitrator
explained that Claimant’s “primary confusion” was that “even if she made a
payment for a particular month, that monthly payment obligation would still be
recorded as past due if there were at the time an outstanding balance for prior
months, as any payment would be applied to the oldest outstanding invoice.”
(Id.) Plaintiff subsequently submitted a motion for reconsideration, which was
expressly denied by the Arbitrator. (Yu Decl., Exs. 8-9.)
With this record, Defendant
establishes that it prevailed in the underlying arbitration. As the party
challenging the award, Plaintiff must demonstrate grounds to vacate the award. (See Pour Le
Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 833-34 [the party
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].) Here,
Plaintiff fails to establish with admissible evidence that the Arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction,
acted with corruption, fraud or other undue means, refused to consider
evidence, or failed to disclose grounds for disqualification. Plaintiff makes a
series of contentions regarding the arbitration without any evidentiary
support. Even considering these contentions on their face, Plaintiff does not
establish any grounds to vacate the award.
Plaintiff cites a motion for
reconsideration (submitted prior to the award), which addressed “subconscious
bias, misconduct of the arbitrator, and defendant's breaches” during the hearing
on December 7, 2023. (See Mot. to Vacate, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff does not articulate
the purported misconduct underlying that motion, aside from attaching the
motion itself. In the motion, Plaintiff contends that the Arbitrator erred by
allowing Defendant to submit discovery after the deadline. Additionally,
Plaintiff asserts that the Arbitrator supported Defendants impermissible use of
Plaintiff’s “sensitive personal information” on the record, including her “full
payment history.” However, Plaintiff does not explain what substantial prejudice,
if any, these issues caused Plaintiff. Otherwise, Plaintiff makes a series of
contentions regarding the merits of the case and her requests for further
discovery after the evidentiary hearing. These contentions do not show
excess of jurisdiction, corruption, fraud or other undue means, and thus do not
support vacation.
Plaintiff also complains that an AAA agent
promised that “management” would review the motion and that this
promise was never fulfilled. Plaintiff cites an email chain which, if
considered by the Court, undermines this contention. The email chain shows that
Plaintiff submitted the motion directly to AAA’s administrative team,
specifically “Admin 19,” the Self-Represented Case Administration Team. (Mot.
to Vacate, Ex. 3.) On December 18, 2023, and January 5, 2024, Admin 19 wrote
that “management will review the motion” and that the case is under
“administrative review.” (Id.) Later, on January 5, 2024, Admin 19 forwarded
the Arbitrator’s summary denial of the motion to Plaintiff. (Id.) In response
to Plaintiff’s further inquiries, Admin 19 explained that the motion and
Defendant’s response was provided to the arbitrator for review and
determination, that only an arbitrator can decide the case, that the arbitrator
denied the motion, and that the arbitration was closed. (Id.) This email chain
suggests that the proper procedure was followed. Plaintiff does not cite any
arbitration rule stating that Plaintiff is entitled to a “management” review,
whatever that would entail. To the extent that Admin 19 promised an
“administrative” or “management” review, Admin 19 apparently complied with this
promise by reviewing the motion papers and sending the papers to the arbitrator
for a determination.
Defendant met its initial burden to
confirm the award. Plaintiff, in turn, fails to show any grounds to vacate.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to confirm is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion
to vacate is DENIED.