Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV29294, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29294    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 8, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award;

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT’S PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, oppositions, and reply.

A. Plaintiff’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

Plaintiff moves to vacate the arbitration award issued by arbitrator Irene M. Guimera on June 7, 2023, which granted Defendant’s dispositive motion. Plaintiff asserts that the arbitrator exceeded her authority by granting the motion without a formal evidentiary hearing. Defendant also contends the arbitrator incorrectly interpreted the law.

Plaintiff argues that the arbitrator should have allowed Plaintiff to depose Defendant’s officer, as requested in the opposition to the dispositive motions, before issuing an award. In opposition, Defendant represents that the parties had several months to conduct discovery and mutually agreed on the briefing schedule for the dispositive motion. Defendant also emphasizes that Plaintiff does not explain what evidence would have come from the deposition. The Court finds the arbitrator did not exceed her authority in refusing to allow the deposition. Plaintiff had ample time and opportunity to investigate and argue her claims and Plaintiff’s only apparent reason to take the deposition was to attack the deponent’s credibility.

The arbitration award addresses three issues: (1) whether Plaintiff had evidence supporting tender; (2) whether Defendant violated Civ. Code § 2923.5; and (3) whether Defendant was required to comply with Corp. Code § 17708.03. The arbitrator found that a sales agreement and unsigned escrow agreement showing a closing date before the foreclosure, that never actually resulted in a sale, was insufficient to establish Plaintiff had the means to comply with the tender requirement. The arbitrator found Civ. Code § 2923.5 and Corp. Code § 17708.03 did not apply under the plain language of the statutes. The Court sees no issue with these findings.

Plaintiff’s petition to vacate arbitration award is DENIED.

B. Defendant’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration

Defendant moves to confirm the arbitration award and issue a final judgment which includes attorney’s fees awarded by this Court in response to Defendant’s successful motion to expunge a lis pendens. Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.  (CCP § 1285.)  Petitioner has complied with CCP § 1285.4. Plaintiff opposes the petition on the same grounds set forth in the petition to vacate arbitration. As discussed, these arguments fail.

Defendant’s petition to confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.