Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 22GDCP00178, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22GDCP00178 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: D
TENTATIVE
RULING
Calendar: 2
Date: 12/9/2022
Case
No. 22GDCP00178
Case
Name: Forward
Financing, LLC v. Goldencare Home Health Agency, Inc., et al.
MOTION/PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
Moving
Party: Petitioner Forward
Financing, LLC
Responding
Party: Respondents Goldencare Home
Health Agency, Inc. dba Goldencare Home
Health
Agency and Asmik Babloyan (No Opposition)
Personal
Service? (CCP §1290.4) No POS
MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION
AWARD
Written arbitration agreement
attached or included verbatim (§1285.4(a)):
ok, Petition, Exhibit 4(b), para. 10
Arbitrator(s)
name(s) (§1285.4(b)): Thomas
M. Haskins (American Arbitration Association)
Arbitration
award and written opinion set forth (§1285.4(c)):
Petition, Exhibit 8(c)
Petition served and filed not
earlier than 10 days after service of the award (§1288.4) and no more than 4
years (§1288) after signed copy of award is served on petitioner: No
POS
Petition
verified or facts evidenced by declaration:
No
DECLARATION OF MOVING PARTY (CCP §2015.5) No
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF:
This is a file opened by a petition
to confirm a contractual arbitration award, based on an arbitration which was
conducted based on a dispute between petitioner and respondents covered by an
arbitration agreement concerning an alleged breach of a future receipts sale
agreement.
The parties submitted to
arbitration pursuant to the agreement and oral hearing having been waived in
accordance with the agreement, the arbitrator considered the written documents
submitted by the representative for claimant.
Respondents failed to appear or submit documents after notice by mail. On August 23, 2022, the arbitrator made the
award, awarding the petitioner/claimant $37,079.80. The award was served on August 24, 2022. [Petition, para. 9(b)]
Petitioner seeks an order
confirming the award and entering judgment according to it and awarding costs
of suit according to proof.
OPPOSITION:
No opposition.
ANALYSIS:
Procedural
No Proof of Service
There is no proof of service
showing that this petition or notice of hearing have been served on either of
the respondents.
CCP § 1286 provides:
“If a petition or response under
this chapter is duly served and filed,
the court shall confirm the award as made... unless in accordance with this
chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award
or dismisses the proceeding.”
The
petition is accordingly required to be served, and given that this is a new
proceeding, and the petition does not point to any manner of service provided
in the arbitration agreement, the service would have to be in a manner provided
by law for service of summons, so that the court would obtain personal
jurisdiction over respondents. See CCP § 1290.4. The file shows that on November 9, 2022, the
court issued and served on petitioner a Notice of Hearing on Petition, setting
the hearing for this date, and ordering petitioner or counsel for the petitioner
“to give notice of this hearing by serving a copy of this notice on all parties
to this action, and file proof of service thereof.” There is
no such proof of service so far in the file.
Unless petitioner submits proof of
service of the petition on the respondents by personal service or other recognized
means of service of summons, as well as proof of service of notice of the
hearing date, the petition must be denied.
No opposition
Assuming appropriate service and
notice can be shown prior to or at the hearing, there has been no timely opposition
filed to the petition.
With respect to the enforcement of
arbitration awards, CCP § 1286 provides:
“If a petition...under this chapter
is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made... unless
in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as
corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.”
Under CCP §§ 1286.4 and 1286.8,
governing the conditions for vacating or correcting an award, the court may not
vacate or correct an award unless a response requesting that the award be
corrected or vacated has been duly served and filed. Such a response to a petition must be filed
within 10 days after service of the petition.
CCP § 1290.6. Under CCP § 1290,
“The allegations of a petition are deemed to be admitted by a respondent duly
served therewith unless a response is duly served and filed.” In this case, assuming that service of the petition
and notice of hearing can be established, there has been no opposition filed,
and the petition could be granted, and the award could be confirmed.
No declaration or
verification
The petition in this case is not
accompanied by a declaration, and the petition is not signed under penalty of
perjury, as would ordinarily be required where proof is required and attached. See CCP section 2015.5. With respect to petitions concerning
arbitration, however, the code specifically provides that the allegations of an
unopposed petition are deemed admitted:
"The allegations of a petition
are deemed to be admitted by a respondent duly served therewith unless a
response is duly served and filed."
Under CCP section 1290.6, a
response must be filed within ten days after service of a petition. As discussed above, assuming service can be
shown, there is no opposition to the petition, so the court will deem the
allegations of the petition admitted.
Substantive
CCP § 1285.4 provides:
“A petition under this chapter
shall:
(a) Set forth the substance of or
have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate...
(b) Set forth the names of the
arbitrators.
(c) Set forth or have attached a
copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.”
The petition satisfies these
requirements. As indicated above, if a
petition is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award, unless it
either corrects or vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding in accordance
with the sections governing those proceedings.
CCP § 1286. A trial court
decision confirming an arbitration award will be upheld on review if it is supported
by substantial evidence. Kohn v.
Jaymar-Ruby, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1530.
The attached Award of Arbitrator awards
to claimant Forward Financing, LLC, against both respondents Goldencare Home Health Agency, Inc. dba Goldencare Home
Health Agency and Asmik Babloyan, jointly and severally, the sum of $37,079.80,
“being the sum of all compensatory damages together with costs, fees, and
expenses incurred by Claimant in these proceedings.” [Attach.8 (c)]. The award will be confirmed.
Under CCP § 1293.2, the court shall
award costs upon any judicial proceeding under title 9 (governing arbitration)
as provided in CCP §1032. The petition
seeks costs of this proceeding “according to proof.” There is no proof attached to the petition. Petitioner will accordingly be awarded costs not
already awarded, if appropriate, pursuant to a timely filed and served
memorandum of costs.
RULING:
[No opposition]
UNOPPOSED Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is
DENIED. There is no proof of service showing
the petition has been served on the respondents. Petitioner has also failed to file proof of
service on the respondents of Notice of Hearing on Petition, as ordered by the
court by order filed and served on petitioner on November 9, 2022.
ONLY IF PROOF OF SERVICE OF PETITION AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON
RESPONDENTS IS SHOWN:
UNOPPOSED Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration award
is GRANTED. The Court notes that no
response to the petition has been served or filed, and, accordingly, under CCP
§ 1290, the allegations of the petition are deemed admitted by
respondents.
Judgment to be entered in conformance with the Award of
Arbitrator, dated August 23, 2022, in the sum of $37,079.80, as against both of
the respondents, Goldencare Home Health Agency, Inc. dba Goldencare Home Health
Agency and Asmik Babloyan, jointly and severally.
Petitioner to seek costs pursuant to a duly filed Memorandum
of Costs.
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS
CRISIS, AND TO ADHERE TO HEALTH GUIDANCE THAT DICTATES SAFETY MEASURES, DEPARTMENT
D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES
Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via
LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.
Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video
appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are
encouraged not to personally appear. With respect to the wearing of face
masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of
Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting
with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have
a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness;
individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals
who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines. In accordance with this guidance, it is
strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a
face mask. The Department D Judge and
court staff will continue to wear face masks. If no appearance is set up through
LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the
parties are submitting on the tentative.