Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCP02610, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02610    Hearing Date: December 19, 2022    Dept: 26

DiJulio, et al. v. Cuozzo, et al.

PETITION TO CONFIRM / VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners David DiJuilo and DiJulio Law Group, Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

Respondent Christy Cuozzo’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is DISMISSED.

THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS CONFIRMED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS DAVID DIJUILO AND DIJULIO LAW GROUP, INC. AND AGAINST RESPONDENT CHRISTY CUOZZO IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,101.50 PLUS COSTS AND INTEREST AS ALLOWED BY CALIFORNIA LAW.

PETITIONERS DAVID DIJUILO AND DIJULIO LAW GROUP, INC. ARE TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On July 13, 2022, Petitioners David DiJulio and DiJulio Law Group, Inc. (“Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against Respondent Christy Cuozzo (“Respondent”). Respondent filed an Answer and Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award on September 21, 2022. Petitioners filed an opposition to the Petition to Vacate on November 2, 2022 and Amended Opposition on November 3, 2022.

Discussion

This Petitions relate to attorney-client fee arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 6203. 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).) It is not clear when the Award was served on the parties. Petitioners contend notice of the Award was provided on April 25, 2022, but no proof of service is included with the copy of the Award attached the Petition. (Petition to Confirm, ¶7 and Attachment 6(c).) Respondent contends notice of the Award was provided on August 29, 2022 and attaches a proof of service with that mailing date. (Petition to Vacate, ¶7 and p. 14.) However, no trial after arbitration was filed by either May 25, 2022 nor by September 28, 2022.

Alternatively, a party may petition to vacate or alter the attorney-client fee award under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, et seq. A petition on these grounds must be filed and served within 100 days of service of the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.) Assuming the Award was not served until August 29, 2022, the instant Petition was timely filed on September 21, 2022.  

Regarding the grounds to vacate the Award, Respondent argues 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 Respondent’s rights; and (4) the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority, and the award cannot be fairly corrected. (Pet., ¶10(c)(1).) Although Respondent contends that facts in support of these grounds to vacate are attached to the Petition to Vacate, Attachment 10c(2) does not include supporting facts. The attachment is simply various exhibits related to the arbitration, for which Respondent provides no explanation or argument as to how they demonstrate the aforementioned grounds to vacate. The only facts alleged to support the Petition to Vacate are Respondent’s contention that “In his brief attorney admitted to incorrect billing + said he would credit those charges. Attorney said he would return retainer. Attorney submitted brief 3 days late.” (Petition to Vacate, ¶10(c)(2).) Again, no other explanation is provided as to how statements in Petitioners’ brief demonstrates corruption, misconduct or that the arbitrator exceeded their authority.

Therefore, the Petition to Vacate or Alter the Arbitration Award fails to demonstrate a basis to set aside the award and should be dismissed. When a petition to correct or vacate an arbitration award is denied, the Court must confirm the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1294; Law Offices of David S. Karton v. Segreto (2009) 176 Cal. App.4th 1, 9-10.) It follows that because the Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award in this action is denied, the Court must grant the Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award.

Conclusion

Petitioners David DiJuilo and DiJulio Law Group, Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

Respondent Christy Cuozzo’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is DISMISSED.

THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS CONFIRMED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS DAVID DIJUILO AND DIJULIO LAW GROUP, INC. AND AGAINST RESPONDENT CHRISTY CUOZZO IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,101.50 PLUS COSTS AND INTEREST AS ALLOWED BY CALIFORNIA LAW.

PETITIONERS DAVID DIJUILO AND DIJULIO LAW GROUP, INC. ARE TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

Petitioners David DiJuilo and DiJulio Law Group, Inc. to give notice.