Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCP00283, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCP00283    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            On or about May 21, 2024, an arbitrator issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Petitioner Vertical Entertainment, LLC (“Petitioner”) and against Respondents Redbox Entertainment, LLC; Redbox Holdings, LLC; and Redbox Automated Retail, LLC (collectively, “Respondents”) in the amount of $683,978.25, inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs.  On June 5, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for an Order Confirming Arbitration Award (the “Petition.)  On June 18, 2024, a hearing was scheduled for July 16, 2024.  To date, no response has been filed. 

LEGAL STANDARD

            “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.  The petition shall name as respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.)

            “A petition under this chapter shall: (a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement; (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators; and (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) 

            “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.)

ANALYSIS

            Service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4 requires the Petition and Notice of Hearing to be served on Respondents “in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice” or “[i]f the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made . . . [s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subds. (a)-(b).)

            As a threshold matter, the Court notes that the Petition is not verified, and the attachments to the Petition have not been authenticated, and therefore hold no evidentiary value.

            Moreover, the (unauthenticated) agreements containing the arbitration provisions provide the following notice provision:

Notices. Notices, authorizations, and requests in connection with this Agreement must be sent by personal delivery, certified mail (return receipt requested), or express courier to the addresses listed in this contract. Notices will be treated as delivered on the date shown on the return receipt or on the courier confirmation of delivery. Notices sent to Licensee must be separately copied and sent to the “Legal Department,” c/o Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 1 Tower Lane, Ste. 900, Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181, and to “SVP – Chief Strategy & Business Development Officer, c/o Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 1800 114th Ave. SE, Bellevue, WA 98004” (and after June 30, 2018, such address changing to 15500 SE 30th Place, Suite 105, Bellevue, WA 98007).

(Ex. C at p. 16, ¶ 7; see also Ex. D at p. 8 ¶ 15.)

            Although the Petition was served on Respondents via notices of acknowledgment and receipt, the proof of service indicates the notice of hearing was served on Respondent’s counsel only electronically.  Therefore, the Court finds service of the Notice of Hearing to be faulty.

            Petitioner contends that electronic service is proper because the arbitration award provides:

5. The Redbox Parties’ counsel agrees to accept service of documents via email in connection with Claimant’s filing of the Stipulated Judgment with the California court.

(Ex. B. at p. 3, ¶ 5.)

            However, the arbitration award was purportedly issued pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, stipulation, and proposed stipulated judgment.  (Ex. A to Petition.)  Nowhere in those documents does there appear any agreement to receive electronic service.

            Therefore, Petitioner has not adequately served the Notice of Hearing on Respondents.

            Substance of Petition

            As discussed above, in addition to the procedural issues regarding the Notice of Hearing, because none of the evidence is authenticated, the Court cannot make any substantive findings with respect to the Petition.      

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Petition without prejudice on procedural grounds.  Petitioner shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  July 16, 2024                                                          ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court