Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00035541-CL-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 15, 2024

02/16/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited  Misc Complaints - Other Hearing on Petition 37-2023-00035541-CL-MC-CTL GHAEEM VS NAKIC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Petitioner Mohammad Ghaeem's petition to vacate arbitration award is DENIED.

'[P]arties must be free to fashion agreements which restrict or limit the arbitrator's authority.' (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 944; see also Mocharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 8 ['In cases involving private arbitration, '[t]he scope of arbitration is . . . a matter of agreement between the parties.'' (quoting Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 323)].) As such, the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow; the court 'may not review either the merits of the controversy or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award.' (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.) Although this creates a risk of an erroneous decision by the arbitrator, it is tolerated because the parties have voluntarily submitted to arbitration, and because 'the Legislature has reduced the risk to the parties of such a decision by providing for judicial review in circumstances involving serious problems with the award itself, or with the fairness of the arbitration process.' (Mocharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 12.) First, Petitioner's request for relief is a motion that must comply with the relevant service requirements.

(See Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 341.) A notice of motion must include the motion hearing date. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.) Here, Petitioner not only failed to include a hearing date, but also failed to include a hearing time or even department. (CRC 3.1110, subd. (b).) Petitioner's motion also lacks a supporting memorandum. (CRC 3.1112, subd. (a).) Petitioner's motion is deniable on these grounds alone.

Second, Petitioner has wholly failed to demonstrate that any ground exists to vacate the arbitration award rendered by arbitrator Don Fobian on June 19, 2023. (ROA #10, p. 10.) Petitioner failed to set forth the factual circumstances that would show Mr. Fobian's engaged in prejudicial misconduct and failed to present evidence to support such allegations. Conversely, Respondent Pedrag Nakic has opposed the petition with extensive argument and evidence showing the arbitral process was fair and in accordance with the parties' agreement. In sum, Petitioner has not established that any grounds exist to vacate or modify the arbitration award rendered on June 19, 2023.

Accordingly, the petition to vacate is denied.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3046185  22