Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 23STCP04169, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Shannon v. Barrera, et al.

PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285, et seq.)

Petitioners Brett Shannon and Doris Parker’s Petition to Correct Arbitration Award is DISMISSED.

On November 14, 2023, Petitioners Brett Shannon and Doris Parker (“Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Correct Arbitration Award against Respondents Raul Barrera and Barrera’s Landscape (“Respondents”). Respondents filed an answer on February 28, 2024.

A party may petition to correct an arbitration 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.) The Award was served on the parties on February 28, 2023. (Pet., Attachment 8c, p. 2.) 100 days after February 28, 2023 was June 8, 2023. The instant Petition was untimely filed and served in November and December of 2023, respectively. Therefore, the Petition was filed and served after the statute of limitations and there is no showing that the statute of limitations should be tolled. (See Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 959-960.)

There are other defects with the Petition, as well. The Petition is brought on the grounds that 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.) Nor is any evidence presented by Petitioners as to why the arbitrator’s ruling was imperfect as a matter of form—which does not affect the merits of the controversy—such that the award can be corrected. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (c).)

Based on the foregoing, Petitioners Brett Shannon and Doris Parker’s Petition to Correct Arbitration Award is DISMISSED.