Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCP01688, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01688    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 26

PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

OLSON V. VALENSI ROSE, PLC, LASC CASE NO. 22STCP01688 AND VALENSI ROSE, PLC V. OLSON, LASC CASE NO. 22STCP01929 ARE HEREBY CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES, PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1048, SUBDIVISION (A). OLSON V. VALENSI ROSE, PLC IS THE LEAD CASE AND ALL PAPERS GOING FORWARD ARE TO BE FILED UNDER LASC CASE NO. 22STCP01688.

LAURA IRIS OLSON’S PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD IS DENIED. THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS CONFIRMED IN FAVOR OF VALENSI ROSE, PLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $ $18,204.38. ACCORDINGLY, VALENSI ROSE, PLC’S PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD IS GRANTED.

VALENSI ROSE, PLC IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On May 4, 2022, Laura Iris Olson (“Olson”) filed the instant Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award against Valensi Rose, PLC (“Valensi Rose, PLC”) in LASC Case No. 22STCP01688. No proof of service of the Petition or Notice of Hearing has been filed with the Court, however, Valensi Rose, PLC filed an opposition on June 10, 2022, thereby waiving any defect in service or notice. (See Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.) Olson filed a reply in support of the Petition to Vacate on July 21, 2022.

Also, on May 20, 2022, Valensi Rose, PLC filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Olson in LASC Case No. 22STCP01929, which was assigned to Department 25 in the Spring Street Courthouse. On August 26, 2022, Valensi Rose, PLC filed a Notice of Related Case with respect to the cases. On September 6, 2022, the judge in Department 25 deemed the cases related and ordered both cases assigned to that department. (Minute Order, 09/06/22.) However, on September 16, 2022, Olson filed a preemptory challenge as to the judge in Department 25, which was granted on the same day. As a result, both cases were then assigned to this department, Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse.

The hearing on the Petitions was continued from September 26, 2022, to the current date, October 25, 2022. No response to Valensi Rose, PLC’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award has been filed to date.

The Court now issues a ruling as to both Petitions.

Discussion

The Petitions relate to attorney-client fee arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 6203. Under this statute, the “arbitration award shall become binding upon the passage of 30 days after service of notice of the award, unless a party has, within the 30 days, sought a trial after arbitration pursuant to Section 6204.” (Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code, § 6203, subd. (b).) The Award was served on the parties on April 4, 2022. (Response, Exh. 2, p. 15.) As no request for trial after arbitration was filed by May 4, 2022, the Award is deemed binding upon the parties.

Instead, Olson filed the instant Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, which is allowed under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, et seq. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 6203, subd. (b).) A petition on these grounds must be filed and served within 100 days of service of the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.) The Petition to Vacate was timely filed on May 4, 2022.  

Regarding the grounds to vacate the Award, the Petition to Vacate states that (1) the award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or other unfair means; (2) the arbitrator was corrupt; (3) the misconduct of a neutral arbitrator substantially prejudiced petitioner's rights; (4) the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority, and the award cannot be fairly corrected; (5) the arbitrator unfairly refused to postpone the hearing or to hear evidence useful to settle the dispute; (6) an arbitrator failed to disclose within the time for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; and (7) an arbitrator should have disqualified himself or herself after petitioner made a demand to do so. (Pet., ¶10c.) However, as Valensi Rose, PLC points out, no facts are included with the Petition in support of these grounds to vacate. (Id. ¶10c(2).)

Petitioner attempts to include supporting facts in the reply but does not provide any attestation of these facts under penalty of perjury. (Response, filed 07/21/22, pp. 3-7.) Nor are any of the exhibits attached to the reply cited, authenticated, or even explained. (Ibid.) Therefore, the statements amount to no more than allegations and the exhibits amount to no more than irrelevant documents, neither of which can provide a basis to vacate the Arbitration Award. The Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is denied.

In light of this ruling, the Court must confirm the Arbitration Award as it was made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1294; Law Offices of David S. Karton v. Segreto (2009) 176 Cal. App.4th 1, 9-10.)

Conclusion

Laura Iris Olson’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is DENIED. Valensi Rose, PLC’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED. THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS CONFIRMED IN FAVOR OF VALENSI ROSE, PLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $ $18,204.38.

VALENSI ROSE, PLC IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Valensi Rose, PLC to give notice.