Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 20STCV23366, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Petitioners International Merchandising Company, LLC; One Sixty Over Ninety CA, LLC; Endeavor Operating Company, LLC; William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC; and Mike Lewinsky bring this petition to confirm the arbitration award entered after binding arbitration between Petitioners and Respondent, Matthew Stanton. Stanton opposed.

Any party to an arbitration may petition the court to confirm an arbitration award. (CCP § 1285.) If a petition to confirm an arbitration award is duly served and filed, the court must confirm the award as made, unless the court corrects or vacates the award pursuant to a response to the petition or a petition to correct or vacate the award. (CCP § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818 [no authority to alter terms of award absent petition to correct].)

A petition to confirm an arbitration award must set forth the substance of or attach the arbitration agreement, include the name of the arbitrator, and attach a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrator, if any. (CCP § 1285.4.) The petition must be served no earlier than 10 days, but no later than 4 years, after service of the award on the petitioner. (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4.)

The petition, written notice of the time and place of the hearing on the petition, and any other papers upon which the petition is based must be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for service of such petition and notice. (CCP § 1290.4(a).) If the arbitration agreement does not specify the required manner of service and the person being served has not yet appeared in the proceeding and has not yet previously been served, then service of the petition within the State must be made in the same manner as service of a summons and complaint pursuant to CCP section 415.10 et seq. (CCP § 1290.4(b)(1).) At least 10 days’ notice of the date set for the hearing on the petition must be given. (CCP §1290.2.) Service outside the state must be made by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. (CCP § 1290.4(b)(2).) The proof of service must show such mailing together with the return receipt signed by the person served. (Id.) If service is made by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, the hearing on the petition may not be held until at least 30 days after the date of such notice. (Id.)

As to arbitration awards, “[o]nly limited judicial review is available; courts may not review the merits of the controversy, the validity of the arbitrator’s reasoning, or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award.” (Shahinian v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 987, 999–1000.) “Thus, with ‘narrow exceptions,’ an arbitrator's decision is not reviewable for errors of fact or law.” (Ibid.) “This is so even if the error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff Matthew Stanton filed this action on June 19, 2020, alleging causes of action for Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code Sections 98.6, 1102.5, and 1102.6; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; and Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. On or around March 19, 2021, the Parties stipulated to arbitration and to stay the instant action. The joint stipulation requested that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action pending the completion of arbitration for enforcement of any arbitration award. Judge Stuart Rice signed the Order on March 23, 2021.

Plaintiff initiated a JAMS employment arbitration on October 14, 2021, before Arbitrator Hon. Joseph R. Brisco (Ret.). On March 30, 2023, Defendants filed a Rule 18 Dispositive Motion against all causes of action in Plaintiff’s demand for arbitration. Thereafter, the Arbitrator issued a final award on July 28, 2023, dismissing Plaintiff’s action in its entirety. (Petition, Attach. 8(c).) The award was served on the parties that same day. (Petition, ¶ 9.)

“A request to vacate [an arbitration award] may be made either in a petition to vacate or in a response to the petition to confirm.” (L. Fin. Grp., LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 932, 946, internal citations omitted.) Under the plain terms of sections 1288 and 1288.2, a party challenging an arbitration award has 100 days from the service of the final award to request that the arbitration award be vacated, and may do so via a standalone petition to vacate or via a response to a petition to confirm the award. (L. Fin. Grp., LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 932, 946.)

“[W]hile a petition to confirm an award may be served and filed within four years, the petition to vacate or correct an award must be served and filed within 100 days after the service of the award on the petitioner. [Citations.] The same 100–day limitation applies when vacation or correction of the award is sought by response…. To this latter rule there is only one exception. When the party petitions the court to confirm the award before the expiration of the 100–day period, respondent may seek vacation or correction of the award by way of response only if he serves and files his response within 10 days after the service of the petition (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1290.6).” (Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. v. Bernard (2010) 182 Cal. App. 4th 60, 66-67.)

Here, on November 21, 2023, Petitioners filed the instant Petition to confirm the award. Respondent filed his response on December 1, 2023. It is undisputed that the Arbitrator issued and served the award on the parties on July 28, 2023.

Thus, to challenge the award, Respondent had 100-days from that date to either (1) file a standalone petition to vacate or correct the award, or (2) to file a “response” to the petition to confirm. Because Petitioners did not file their motion to confirm within that 100-day period, Respondent’s only viable means to challenge the award within 100-days was by filing his own, standalone petition to vacate or correct the award. Because he did not do so, the award must be confirmed as presented.

Petitioners have provided the arbitration agreement, the name of the arbitrator, and the Arbitration Award. (CCP § 1285.4.) The petition has also been served no earlier than 10 days, but no later than 4 years, after service of the award on the petitioners. (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4.)

Respondent advances multiple arguments in support of his challenge to the arbitration award. First, Respondent contends the Petition should be dismissed because the arbitration is still pending. There is no merit to that position.

Respondent notes that on December 1, 2023—the same day he filed his Response—he also filed in the arbitration a motion for relief from the Arbitrator’s order dismissing the arbitration pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Gabriel Decl. ¶ 8.) Respondent states he has “every expectation that his motion…will be successful.” (Response 2: 2021.)

That optimism was short-lived. As presented by Petitioners in their reply, a JAMS case administrator replied to Respondent’s motion for relief by informing the parties by email that the case file had been closed since August 14, 2023. (See Fields Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. D.) On December 7, 2023, after a follow-up from Respondent’s counsel, the JAMS case administrator reiterated that the matter had been closed and that the “Arbitrator’s jurisdiction ended upon closure of the file.” (See Fields Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. E.) Therefore, there is no longer a pending arbitration in this matter.

Second, Respondent argues the award should be vacated because the arbitrator (1) applied the wrong standard of review for motions for summary judgment under federal law; (2) misinterpreted and misapplied Labor Code section 1102.5; and (3) prejudicially failed to grant Respondent leave to amend his complaint in response to the motion for summary judgment. None of these arguments are valid grounds to vacate the award.

A reviewing court’s ability to correct or vacate an award is limited. “[A]n arbitrator's decision is not generally reviewable for errors of fact or law, whether or not such error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice to the parties.” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase¿(1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 6.) “Arbitrators do not exceed their statutory powers merely by rendering an erroneous decision on a legal or factual issue, so long as the issue was within the scope of the controversy submitted to the arbitrators.” (Roehl v. Ritchie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 338, 348.) “So long as an arbitrator has . . . the power to decide that issue, his decision thereon cannot exceed his powers….” (Creative Plastering, Inc. v. Hedley Builders, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1662, 1666.) Respondent has failed to demonstrate that any of the purported errors fall within the limited grounds on which a court may vacate an arbitration award.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.