Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCP00452, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCP00452    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/29/22

Case #21CHCP00452

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARIBTRATION AWARD

Petition filed on 12/20/21.

MOVING PARTY: Petitioners William Douglas Wright, Jr. and Jiong Shou

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent Source Photonics, Inc.

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order confirming the arbitration award made on 9/21/21 and entering judgment according to it and awarding Petitioners interest from 12/16/21 at the statutory rate. 

RULING: The petition is granted as set forth below.

On 12/20/21, Petitioners William Douglas Wright, Jr. (Wright) and Jiong Shou (Shou) (collectively, Petitioners) filed the instant petition seeking an order confirming the arbitration award made on 9/21/21 and entering judgment according to it and awarding Petitioners interest from 12/16/21 at the statutory rate.  On 12/30/21, Respondent Source Photonics, Inc. (Respondent) filed its response to the petition. 

Based on the petition and response, there appears to be no dispute that the arbitration award should be confirmed and judgment entered according to the award.  Rather, the dispute appears to be regarding the information to be contained in the judgment entered.

A petition to confirm an arbitration award must set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.  CCP 1285; CCP 1285.4(c).  Petitioners have failed to comply with the foregoing statutory requirement.  Instead, Petitioners only provide the last page of the 33 page “Final Award (Amended)” with the majority of information on that page redacted.  (See Petition p.2, number 8.b.(1) and (4) and Attachments thereto; Response to Petition Ex.2).  Petitioners’ only explanation for their failure to comply with the statutory requirements of CCP 1285.4(c) is the unsupported contention that attaching the award and opinions “would violate terms of confidentiality of the employment agreements, minutes of the corporate record and of contractual arbitration. The 33 page award includes confidential procedural background, factual background and analysis unnecessary to confirmation and enforcement of the award.”  (See Attachment to Petition 8b(4)).

In order for this Court to fulfill its obligations to confirm the arbitration award as made and enter judgment in conformity therewith, the entire arbitration award along with the opinions of the arbitrator must be considered.  See CCP 1286; CCP 1287.4; (Response to Petition, Ex.1 and 2). 

Based on the foregoing, the arbitration award is confirmed and judgment will be entered in conformity therewith.  Respondent is ordered to submit a proposed Judgment which includes the findings/rulings made by the arbitrator as set forth in the Response to the Petition at p.4:13-p.5:16.