Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2020-01128874, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling
Please Note: The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for 8:30 A.M.
Motion to Vacate Dismissal
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to vacate dismissal is GRANTED.
The dismissal of this action entered on 08/09/2022 is VACATED.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., moves to vacate the dismissal of this action entered on 08/09/2022.
On 11/16/2020, the court granted Defendant Uber’s motion to compel arbitration with respect to the claims asserted by Plaintiff Sushant Gupta.
On 08/16/2021, Defendant Uber moved to dismiss this action based on Plaintiff’s delay in proceeding to arbitration.
On 09/13/2021, the court denied Defendant Uber’s motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s representations that he had initiated arbitration proceedings with JAMS and that the proceedings were pending.
On 05/04/2022, Arbitrator Richard Aronson issued a final arbitration award. (See Senesi Decl., Exh. 2 [Dispositive Motion and Final Award].)
On 08/09/2022, more than three months after the arbitrator had issued his award, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of this entire action without prejudice. The dismissal was entered the same date.
Civil Procedure Code section 581 provides that “[a]n action may be dismissed . . . [w]ith or without prejudice . . . at any time before the actual commencement of trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 581.)
However, when parties present evidence and argument before the arbitrator, that “commence[s] arbitration” and constitutes “commencement of trial” under Section 581(b)(1). (Mesa Shopping Center-East, LLC v. O Hill (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 890, 905-906.)
Therefore, a plaintiff may not voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice “[o]nce the hearing on the merits of the parties’ dispute commence[s] at the arbitration.” (Id. at p. 893.)
Here, Plaintiff improperly dismissed the case after the parties had submitted their dispute to the arbitrator and received a final arbitration award. Plaintiff’s dismissal is therefore improper and must be vacated.
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s petition to confirm arbitration award is CONTINUED to 02/06/2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department N15.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. petitions the court to confirm the final arbitration award issued on 05/04/2022 by Arbitrator Richard Aronson.
A party may petition the court to confirm an arbitration award, or to correct or vacate that award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) However, all parties to the arbitration and any other persons bound by the arbitration award must be named as respondents to the petition. (Ibid.)
Further, the petition and notice of hearing must be served at least 10 days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.2.) Where the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which service shall be made and the person on whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with Civil Procedure Code section 1290.4(a), the petition and notice of hearing must be served in a manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b).)
Here, the petition to confirm the arbitration award does not name as respondents Rasier, LLC; Rasier-CA, LLC; and Portier, LLC; who were named as parties to the arbitration. (See ROA #197 [Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award]; Senesi Decl., Exh. 2 [Dispositive Motion and Final Award].) The proof of service for the petition also does not indicate that these entities were personally served with the petition, as required by Civil Procedure Code section 1290.4. (fn.1)
In addition, while Plaintiff is mentioned in the petition to confirm the arbitration award and was served with the petition, he was not formally designated as a “respondent” in the petition.
The court will therefore continue this hearing to allow Defendant Uber to file and serve an amended petition in conformity with the above requirements.
This is also consistent with Plaintiff’s request for a continuance to allow him to obtain counsel and file a challenge to the arbitration award.
The court notes, however, that a petition to vacate an arbitration award must be served and filed no later than 100 days after service of a signed copy of the award on the party seeking to vacate the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.2.)
In this case, the arbitration award was served on Defendant Uber on 05/04/2022. (See Senesi Decl., ¶ 5.) Therefore, there is reason to believe that PLaintiff was served with the arbitration award at about the same time and that any request to vacate the arbitration award would be untimely.
In light of this, any request to vacate the arbitration award shall include evidence showing the date when the party making the request was served with the signed copy of the award. Failure to provide such evidence may lead to denial of the request.
Defendant Uber shall give notice of this ruling.
(fn.1) It appears that Rasier-CA, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Uber. (See Senesi Decl., Exh. 1, ¶ 6.) However, even if all three entities are affiliated with Defendant Uber, they are still separate entities and must be treated as such. Civil Procedure Code section 1285 requires that “all parties to the arbitration” and “any other persons bound by the arbitration award” must be named as respondents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.)