Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STCP00124, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00124    Hearing Date: May 30, 2024    Dept: 26

Liu v. Tang, et al.

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; PETITION TO CORRECT AWARD

(CCP § 1285, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

THE COURT SETS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF GLAMSCAPE, INC. ON AUGUST 29, 2024 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

A NEW HEARING DATE ON THE INSTANT PETITION TO CORRECT ARBITRATION AWARD AND RESPONSIVE PETITION IS TO BE DETERMINED FOLLOWING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On January 12, 2024, Petitioner Shawn Liu (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Correct Arbitration Award against Respondent Lach Tach (“Respondent”). Respondent filed a response in the form of a Petition to Correct and Confirm Arbitration Award, and Cross-Complaint on May 9, 2024.

Discussion

Before the Court can reach the merits of the Petitions, several procedural matters must be addressed. First, the Petition to Correct is brought by Petitioner with respect to an arbitration award issued against Glamscape, Inc. (Pet., Attachment 8(c).) Petitioner, therefore, is not a party named in the arbitration proceeding. Even if the Petition were on behalf of Glamscape, Inc., it is black letter law that a corporation cannot represent itself in court. (Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578 (citing Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729-730).) This rule applies to all entities regarded as separate from their owners, including partnerships and unincorporated associations. (See Clean Air Transport Systems, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at 578.) Glamscape, Inc. filed the Petition without proper legal representation, and it must appear through an attorney going forward.

As an aside, the Court will not address Respondent’s arguments regarding the correct parties to the arbitration award at this time.

Second, Respondent’s joint Petition to Correct and Confirm Arbitration Award, and Cross-Complaint are not accompanied by a proof of service demonstrating it was served on Petitioner. Also, a response that seeks to vacate or correct the award must be served and filed no later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award on the moving party. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1290.6, 1288.2.) The award was served on Respondent on October 17, 2023, making the deadline to file and serve a petition to correct the arbitration award was January 25, 2024. This deadline, however, is subject to equitable tolling in exceptional circumstances. (Law Finance Group, LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 960.) Grounds for such tolling must be determined to exist by the Court upon a showing by Respondent before the Court will consider the responsive Petition to Correct.

Finally, Respondent’s inclusion of a Cross-Complaint in their response to the Petition is improper. A cross-complaint may only be filed by “[a] party against whom a cause of action has been asserted in a complaint or cross-complaint  . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.10.) No complaint or cross-complaint has been filed in this action asserting a cause of action against Respondent. Therefore, Respondent cannot file a cross-complaint in this action. On its own motion, the Court strikes Respondent’s Cross-Complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)

Conclusion

THE COURT SETS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF GLAMSCAPE, INC. ON AUGUST 29, 2024 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

A NEW HEARING DATE ON THE INSTANT PETITION TO CORRECT ARBITRATION AWARD AND RESPONSIVE PETITION IS TO BE DETERMINED FOLLOWING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.

Court clerk to give notice.