Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCP03990, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03990    Hearing Date: March 13, 2023    Dept: 26

Garza v. Holder, et al.

PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Daniel Garza’s Petition to Correct Arbitration Award is DISMISSED.

ANALYSIS:

On November 7, 2022, Petitioner Daniel Garza (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Correct Arbitration Award against Respondents Lisa Holder, Esq. and Law Offices of Lisa Holder (“Respondents”). No proof of service of the Petition nor Notice of Hearing has been filed with the Court. No response to the Petition has been filed to date.

Discussion

This Petition relates 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).) The Award was served on the parties by the arbitrator on July 14, 2022. (Pet., Exh. A, p. 30.) No trial after arbitration was filed by August 15, 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.) 100 days after July 14, 2022 was October 22, 2022. The instant Petition was untimely filed on November 7, 2022, nor is there any indication that the Petition was served on Respondents, let alone by the statutory deadline. The 100-day deadline is jurisdictional. (Law Finance Group, LLC [citing Santa Monica College Faculty Assn. v. Santa Monica Community College Dist. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 538, 544–545; Douglass v. Serenivision, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 376, 384–385].) Therefore, the Court has no authority to grant the Petition beyond the deadline.

There are other procedural defects with the Petition, as well. The Petition does not name Angela De Jesus, who was also a party to the arbitration proceeding, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1285. Nor is there any proof of service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing on Respondents, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4.

Finally, regarding the grounds to vacate the Award, the Petition states that (1) the amount of the award was calculated incorrectly; (2) the arbitrator exceed their authority; and (3) the award is imperfect as a matter of form. (Pet., ¶10(b).) However, the basis of Petitioner’s arguments is that the arbitrator came to the wrong determination despite the evidence presented during the arbitration proceeding. (Pet., Attachment 10(b)(2).) This is not a basis to vacate an arbitration award. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a).) The Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator. (Young v. Ross-Loos Medical Group, Inc. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 669, 673.) No authority is cited by Petitioner as to why the arbitrator’s ruling exceeded their authority such that the award can be corrected.

 Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner Daniel Garza’s Petition to Correct Arbitration Award is DISMISSED.

Court clerk to give notice.