Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case Number: 22STCV37748, Date: 2024-08-22 Tentative Ruling

The Request to Dismiss Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

The Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award and the associated proceedings are DISMISSED.

On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff Ralph Kesting filed his Complaint against Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. on causes of action of violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and invasion of privacy.

On January 26, 2023, pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation, the court submitted this matter to binding arbitration.

On or about May 29, 2024, Defendant paid Plaintiff the full amount of the Final Award.

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed Judicial Council Form ADR-106, Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award (“Petition”). In support of his Petition, Plaintiff concurrently filed: (1) Points and Authorities; (2) Declaration of Jeremy S. Golden; (3) Proposed Judgment; and (4) Proof of Service.

On June 10, 2024, Defendant filed its Opposition to the Petition. Defendant’s Opposition includes a request to dismiss the Petition.

On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Reply in support of the Petition. Plaintiff concurrently filed his Proof of Service.

“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 respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.)

(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.

“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 proceedings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.)

“If an award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith. The judgment so entered has the same force and effect as, and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action of the same jurisdictional classification; and it may be enforced like any other judgment of the court in which it is entered, in an action of the same jurisdictional classification.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.)

“We begin with the premise that courts will not render opinions on moot questions.” (Watkins v. Wachovia Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1588, citation omitted.)

Here, it is undisputed that the Arbitrator issued a Final Award in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $61,193.50. (Decl. Golden, Exh. 3, pp. 30–31 [emphasis added].) The Final Award was “in full resolution of all of the Parties’ claims submitted in the arbitration”, and the Arbitrator clearly noted that “[a]ll claims not expressly granted herein are denied.” (Id. at p. 31.)

It is also undisputed that on or about May 29, 2024 (which was after the Final Award was issued but before the Petition was filed), Defendant fully paid Plaintiff the award amount of $61,193.50. (Points & Authorities, p. 3:11; Decl. Golden, ¶ 8; Opposition, p. 1:24–26 [emphasis added].)

Thus, there is no controversy left for the court to adjudicate. Plaintiff has litigated all of his claims, and Defendant has paid all of its liabilities.

Yet Plaintiff’s Counsel still petitions the Court to confirm the arbitration award and enter judgment, claiming “[t]he mere fact a defendant has satisfied its obligation does not divest the court of authority to confirm the award.” (Points & Authorities, p. 3:16–22.)

Defense Counsel disagrees, arguing that the “Petition is wholly unnecessary” and that “[c]onfirmation of the [Final] Award is not mandatory in California.” (Opposition, pp. 1:24, 2:24; see Cal. Civ. Proc., § 1286.) Defense Counsel then requests that the court deny the Petition and dismiss the proceeding instead of entering judgment on the Final Award. (Id. at p. 3:2–9.)

In his Reply, Plaintiff’s Counsel argues that the court’s only option is to confirm the Final Award. (Reply, p. 1:23–27.) Plaintiff comes to this argument through citations to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1285, 1286, and 1287.2, and 1287.4. (Id. at pp. 1:23–2:20.) Of note, Plaintiff’s Counsel omits any mention of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.2, cites non-binding case law from other jurisdictions, and argues that Defense Counsel is the one misconstruing the law. (Id. at pp. 1:28, 2:21–26.)

“A response to a petition under this chapter may request the court to dismiss the petition or to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.2.)

“The court shall dismiss the proceeding under this chapter as to any person named as a respondent if the court determines that such person was not bound by the arbitration award and was not a party to the arbitration.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.2.)

As applied here, these sections mean that Plaintiff is allowed to file his Petition, Defendant is allowed to request its dismissal, and the court need not confirm the award if it dismisses the proceedings.

Furthermore, the language used in Code of Civil Procedure section 1287.2 does not indicate that there is only one ground for a dismissal in accordance with the chapter. Rather, taken in the context of the chapter as a whole, Code of Civil Procedure section 1287.2 appears to be just one mandatory provision regarding dismissal.

This reading is confirmed by repeated opinions from our Courts of Appeal. For example, as one panel recently stated:

The court must dismiss the proceeding as to respondent if the court determines the person ‘was not bound by the arbitration award and was not a party to the arbitration.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.2.) Courts have suggested additional circumstances exist that would allow the court to dismiss the proceeding. (Karton, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 8, fn. 12 [stating in dicta that other procedural bases may exist for dismissal of a proceeding, such as when a petition is filed after the four-year statute of limitations set forth in Code Civ. Proc., § 1288, a party to a nonbinding arbitration award filed a timely request for trial de novo, or any procedural basis that would justify dismissal of any other civil action]; Cinel v. Christopher, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 767 [dismissal was proper when there was no ‘award’ within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.4]; Maplebear, Inc. v. Busick (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 394, 399–401 [237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98] [concluding from case law that Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.2 does not contain exclusive grounds for dismissal of proceeding].)

(Soni v. SimpleLayers, Inc. (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1071, 1086, footnote omitted.)

“In the event of satisfaction [of an arbitration award], judicial relief will not be necessary, conserving court resources.” (Eternity Invs., Inc. v. Brown (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 739, 746.)

As the Final Award has been satisfied, the Petition is moot and there is no need for further proceedings. Thus, dismissal of the Petition and the associated proceedings is both completely appropriate and in accordance with basic judicial principles.

The Request to Dismiss Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

The Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award and the associated proceedings are DISMISSED.

[1] At the hearing, the court will inquire of the parties whether Lew-Williams v. Petrosian (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 97 prevents the court from dismissing the action.