Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 25SMCP00173, Date: 2025-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25SMCP00173    Hearing Date: June 16, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            On or about May 31, 2023, arbitrator Leslie Steven Marks of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) issued an Arbitration Award in favor of Petitioner Gursey Schneider LLP (“Petitioner”) and against Respondent Peter Martini (“Respondent”) in the amount of $78,320.78, representing $67,233.00 in unpaid service fees rendered plus $11,087.78 in unpaid interest accruing pursuant to the parties’ agreement.  (Ex. B to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award [“Petition”].)  The agreement provides for interest at the rate of 10% on any account balance not paid in full within 60 days of completion of the assignment.  (Ex. A to Petition at p. 2.) 

On March 28, 2025, Petitioner filed Petition for Confirmation of Arbitration Award.  On May 20, 2025, a hearing was noticed for June 16, 2025.  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 Respondent “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).)  

            Attached as Exhibit A to the Petition is the signed Litigation Consulting Services Engagement Agreement containing the arbitration provision.  The Agreement provides, “We agree that any petition to confirm an arbitration award may be served by mail at the last known address and that no personal service will be required.”   The Agreement was signed by Respondent’s counsel, Ronald A. Rale of Trope and Trope LLP with an address of 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 801, Los Angeles, CA 90025. 

            Petitioner’s filings indicate the Petition and Notices of Hearing were served by mail on  Respondent’s counsel on April 9, April 15, May 13, May 20, and May 28, 2025.  Therefore, Petitioner has adequately served the Petition and Notice of Hearing on Respondent.

            Substance of Petition

            Attached to the Petition as Exhibit A is a copy of the arbitration agreement.  Attached as Exhibit B to the Petition is a copy of the arbitrator’s final award, signed by arbitrator Leslie Steven Marks.

            Therefore, the Court finds Petitioner has satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1285, 1285.4 and 1290.4.

            Post-Award Interest

Petitioner also seeks $21.457 in post-arbitration daily interest from May 31, 2023 through June 10, 2025 ($21.457 x 741 days) totaling $15,900.19. 

However, the $21.457 daily interest includes the $11,087.78 in pre-award interest, and effectively constitutes interest upon interest.  Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010 provides “interest accrues at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the principal amount of a money judgment remaining unsatisfied.”  (Emphasis added.) 

As such, the proper daily post-award interest is $18.42.  741 days at $18.42 daily interest totals $13,649.22 in post-award interest.

            Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Petitioner also seeks $3,160 in attorneys’ fees and $435 in costs, representing the filing fee for the petition.  (Wright Decl. ¶ 3.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, which outlines recoverable costs to a prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, permits the recovery of attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)  Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 provides “[e]xcept as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties [….]”  Similarly, Civil Code section 1717 provides “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.”  (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).)

The Code of Civil Procedure defines the “prevailing party” as follows:

[T]he party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. If any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the “prevailing party” shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

            Page 4 of the arbitration agreement, attached as Exhibit A to the Petition indicates, “In the event civil proceedings to confirm the arbitration award as judgment are required, the prevailing party may be entitled to receive all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to the confirmation and enforcement of the judgment.”  Therefore, Petitioner has demonstrated entitlement to the requested attorneys’ fees.

            Petitioner’s request for costs is also granted, as the “prevailing party” in the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants the unopposed Petition and confirms the arbitrator’s award that Petitioner Gursey Schneider, LLP shall recover from Respondent Peter Martini the sum of $78,320.78, representing $67,233.00 in unpaid service fees rendered plus $11,087.78 in unpaid interest accruing at an annual rate of 10% pursuant to the parties’ agreement. 

The Court also grants in part Petitioner’s unopposed request for post-award interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and awards $13,649.22 in post-award interest, $3,160 in attorneys’ fees, and $435 in costs. 

Accordingly, the Court will enter the proposed Order and Judgment in conformity with the Court’s ruling.  Further, on the Court’s own motion, the Court vacates the Case Management Conference scheduled on July 31, 2025 as moot.

Petitioner shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.    

DATED:  June 16, 2025                                                         ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court