Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 23STCP02528, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STCP02528, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP02528 Hearing Date: November 27, 2023 Dept: 26

Valk v. Simpson, et al.
PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(Bus. & Profs. Code § 6200, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Sharron Valk’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 6, 2023 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

THE COURT CONSOLIDATES THIS ACTION AND LASC CASE NO. 23STCP01874 FOR ALL PURPOSES. LASC CASE NO. 23STCP01874 IS DESIGNATED THE LEAD CASE AND ALL FILINGS GOING FORWARD ARE TO BE UNDER LASC CASE NO. 23STCP01874. FINALLY, ALL HEARING DATES ARE TO BE SET UNDER LASC CASE NO. 23STCP01874.

ANALYSIS:

On July 20, 2023, Petitioner Sharron Valk (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award against Respondent Keith Simpson (“Respondent”). Proof of personal service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing was filed with the Court on October 20, 2023. No response has been filed to date.

Discussion

Petitioner contends the arbitration award issued on April 10, 2023 by Tamila C. Jensen (“the arbitrator”) must be vacated because (1) the arbitrator substantially prejudiced Petitioner’s rights; and (2) the arbitrator failed to make proper disclosures. (Pet., Valk Decl., pp. 4:26-5:2.)

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).) If a party does not move for a new trial, they may alternatively petition to vacate or alter the attorney-client fee award under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, et seq. within 100 days of service of the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.)

It is not exactly clear when the Award was served on the parties. The Petition states that the Award was served on April 11, 2023 but Petitioner then indicates that she did not receive it until April 27, 2023 and that it lacked any proof of service. (Pet., ¶7; Valk Decl., p. 5:5-14.) Petitioner then asks the Court to accept May 24, 2023—the date she was mailed a copy of the proof of service—as “the start date for the proof of service.” (Ibid.)

Regardless of the service date of the Award being April 11, 2023, or May 24, 2023, the instant Petition was not timely served. Petitioner filed a proof of personal service indicating that the papers were served on an unnamed person, presumably Respondent, on October 20, 2023. (Proof of Personal Service, filed 10/20/23, ¶¶3-5.) October 20, 2023 was 149 days after May 24, 2023. Therefore, the instant Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, was not timely filed as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1288. While the statutory limitations period is subject to equitable tolling under appropriate circumstances, the Petition here demonstrates no such circumstances. (See Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 953.)

The Court further notes that on October 30, 2023, this action was deemed related to Simpson v. Valk, LASC Case No. 23STCP01874, which concerns the same arbitration award. (Minute Order, 10/20/23.) In LASC Case No. 23STCP01874, Respondent filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award, which initially came for hearing on October 3, 2023 in Department 25 of the Spring Street Courthouse, was transferred to Department 26 of the Spring Street Courthouse, and then set for hearing on December 6, 2023. (LASC Case No. 23STCP01874 Minute Order, 10/03/23.)

In light of the cases being related, the Court now consolidates them for all purposes pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a). Consolidation is appropriate given that the actions involve common questions of law and fact. It is also appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1286, as explained by the California Supreme Court:

[I]f the losing party wishes to attack the award, the statutes make clear that such a challenge must be made promptly to promote the timely final resolution of the matters submitted to arbitration. (See Recommendation (Dec. 1960) 3 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep., supra, at p. G-58.) If such a challenge is made, the Act requires the court to settle all issues relating to the status of the arbitral award in a single proceeding, by either confirming the award (as rendered or as corrected by the court) or by vacating it.

(Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 947 [emphasis added].) Accordingly, the hearing on the instant Petition to Vacate is continued to December 6, 2023, to be heard concurrently with the Petition to Confirm filed in LASC Case No. 23STCP01874.

Conclusion

Petitioner Sharron Valk’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 6, 2023 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Court clerk to give notice.