Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STCP00680, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP00680 Hearing Date: August 10, 2023 Dept: 26
One Ring Networks, Inc. v. Sagoo, et al.
PETITION
TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; PETITION TO CORRECT AWARD
(CCP § 1285, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Petitioner One Ring Network,
Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,096.38;
RESPONDENT PAUL SAGOO’S PETITION TO CORRECT OR VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD IS
DENIED. ATTORNEY’S FEES MAY BE SOUGHT BY NOTICED MOTION AND COSTS MAY BE SOUGHT
BY MEMORANDUM OF COSTS. INTEREST SOUGHT IS TO BE SET FORTH AS A CALCULATION IN
THE PROPOSED JUDGMENT. PETITIONER IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS
OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On March 2, 2023, Petitioner One Ring Networks, Inc.
(“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award against
Respondent Paul Sagoo (“Respondent”). Respondent filed a response in the form
of a Petition to Correct or Vacate Arbitration Award on April 26, 2023.
The Petition came for hearing on July 6, 2023 at which time
the parties informed the Court that a settlement had been reached. (Minute
Order, 07/06/23.) The Court continued the hearing to August 10, 2023. On July
27, 2023, however, Petitioner filed a response to the Petition to Correct or
Vacate Arbitration Award.
Legal Standard
“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made
may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondent all
parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound
by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1285.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly
served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered
in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it
corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses
the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
1286.)
A response to a
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award that seeks to vacate or correct the award
must be served and filed within 10 days of service of the Petition to Confirm,
and no later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of
the award on the respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1290.6, 1288.2.)
Discussion
The arbitration award was served on the parties on December 13, 2022.
(Pet. to Confirm, ¶9a; Pet. to Correct/Vacate, ¶9a.) The deadline for
Respondent to file a petition to correct or vacate the award expired 100 days
later, on March 23, 2023. The instant Petition to Correct or Vacate Arbitration
Award, however, was not served until April 24, 2023. (Pet. to Correct/Vacate,
Proof of Service.) The Petition to Correct or Vacate is also untimely under
Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6 because it was not filed within ten days
of service of the Petition to Confirm. The Petition to Confirm Arbitration
Award was served effective March 24, 2023. (Proof of Substitute Service, filed
07/07/23.) The ten-day deadline expired on April 3, 2023. Since Respondent
offers no explanation for bringing an untimely petition to correct or vacate, the
Court cannot consider it. (Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14
Cal.5th 932, 945.)
(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.) The court must
confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or
dismisses the proceeding. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility,
Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.) Petitioner has set forth the
substance of the arbitration award and submitted a copy of the arbitration
agreement with the name of the
arbitrator. (Pet., ¶¶4-6 and Attachment 8(c).) This satisfies Code of Civil
Procedure section 1285.4, subdivisions (a)-(c). Substantively, Petitioner has demonstrated that on August 24, 2022, the
arbitrator issued an award in its favor and against Respondent in the amount of
$22,096.38. (Pet., Attachment 8(c), p. 2.)
Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Interest
To the extent
Petitioner requests attorney’s fees and costs according to proof, those are
permitted on a petition to confirm arbitration award. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1293.2; MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Gorman (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th.Supp.
1, 7.) Petitioner may file a memorandum of costs pursuant to Cal. Rules of
Court Rule 3.1700 and a noticed motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal.
Rules of Court Rule 3.1702. Finally, the interest sought by Petitioner may be
set forth as an interest calculation in the proposed judgment. (See Civ. Code,
§ 3289.)
Conclusion
Petitioner One Ring Network,
Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,096.38;
RESPONDENT PAUL SAGOO’S PETITION TO CORRECT OR VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD IS
DENIED. ATTORNEY’S FEES MAY BE SOUGHT BY NOTICED MOTION AND COSTS MAY BE SOUGHT
BY MEMORANDUM OF COSTS. INTEREST SOUGHT IS TO BE SET FORTH AS A CALCULATION IN
THE PROPOSED JUDGMENT. PETITIONER IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS
OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.