Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 18STCV10413, Date: 2024-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV10413    Hearing Date: January 22, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff Leonor Hernandez Mata            

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant A&A Maintenance Enterprise, Inc.

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this petition.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Leonor Hernandez Mata (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order                       (1) confirming the arbitration award issued in favor of Plaintiff and against defendant A&A Maintenance Enterprise, Inc. (“Defendant”) on October 20, 2023, and (2) entering partial judgment pursuant thereto.  (Pet., Ex. B, Final Award.)  

The Final Award issued by the arbitrator awarded to Plaintiff (1) $78,674.71 in damages and civil penalties, (2) $4,976.63 in costs, and (3) $219,179.20 in attorney’s fees.  (Pet. Ex. B, Final Award, p. 2; Pet. Ex. B, Fourth Interim Award re Respondent’s Motion to Tax Costs, pp. 6:1-3 [awarding costs in the total amount of $4,976.63, excluding costs for transcripts, postage, and mediation]; Pet. Ex. B, Third Interim Award Concerning Claimant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, p. 11:9-12 [awarding attorney’s fees for a total of $215,179.20, excluding $6,023 for unnecessary entries prior to filing the arbitration and $760 for the reduction in hourly rate, and using a 1.2 multiplier]; Pet. Ex. B, Second Interim Award, pp. 2-3 [awarding total of $78,674.71 in damages and civil penalties].)

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s petition and requests that the court correct the arbitrator’s award to exclude various categories of costs and attorney’s fees.

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.)  

“[T]he court, unless it vacates the award pursuant to Section 1286.2, shall correct the award and confirm it as corrected if the court determines that: 

(a)   There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award;  

(b)   The arbitrators exceeded their powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted; or  

(c)   The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.”  

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.6.)  

“Arbitrators may exceed their powers when they act in a manner not authorized by contract or by law, act without subject matter jurisdiction, decide an issue that was not submitted to arbitration, arbitrarily remake the contract, uphold an illegal contract, issue an award that violates a well-defined public policy, issue an award that violates a statutory right, fashion a remedy that is not rationally related to the contract, or select a remedy not authorized by law.”  (Cohen v. TNP 2008 Participating Notes Program, LLC (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 840, 868.)

In its opposition, Defendant argues that, in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiff (1) for the fees incurred in the underlying judicial proceeding and (2) for the fees incurred in mediation, the arbitrator exceeded her powers, rendering the Final Award subject to correction by the court.  The court disagrees.

First, Defendant contends that the arbitrator exceeded her authority in awarding to Plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the underlying judicial proceeding. 

In the Third Interim Award Concerning Claimant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, the arbitrator (1) found that some of the attorney’s fees incurred prior to the initiation of arbitration was spent on tasks necessary for arbitration, and specifically found that such work “would have had to have been performed for the causes of action that were arbitrated even if the causes of action that were not arbitrated had not existed[,]” and (2) in reviewing the accounting, found that $6,023 of the billing entries were not needed for the arbitrated claims and therefore deducted that amount from the fee award.  (Pet., Ex. B, Third Interim Award Concerning Claimant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, p. 5:6-10, 5:22-25.)  The arbitrator made the same findings as to the award for costs.  (Pet. Ex. B, Fourth Interim Award re Respondent’s Motion to Tax Costs, p. 4:9-16 [rejecting argument that Plaintiff could not recover costs “for the same reasons expressed in the Third Interim Award Regarding Attorneys’ Fees”].)  Defendant requests that the court correct the Final Award (1) by deducting $893.80 in costs, and (2) by deducting $43,894.50 in attorney’s fees.  (Opp., pp. 5:3-4, 6:11-14.)

Defendant has cited DiMarco v. Chaney (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1809 and Heimlich v. Shivji (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 152, reversed on other grounds in Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) 7 Cal.5th 350, in support of its assertion that the arbitrator was not permitted to award fees and costs incurred in the judicial proceeding.  The DiMarco Court, upon concluding that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in declining to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, observed the following:  “Once the arbitrator makes a determination as to the amount of attorney fees and costs to which [the prevailing party] is entitled for the arbitration proceeding, [the prevailing party] may move in the superior court to confirm the award.  At that juncture, [the prevailing party] may bring a noticed motion . . . to recover the reasonable amount of the attorney fees and costs which she incurred in judicial proceedings.”  (DiMarco, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1815, 1817-1818 [emphasis in original omitted].) 

But the court finds that this language (1) does not require a prevailing party to separately move for attorney’s fees as contemplated by Defendant, and (2) does not bar an arbitrator from awarding attorney’s fees incurred in judicial proceedings to a party where, as here, the arbitrator determines that the compensated work would have been performed even if the non-arbitrated claims had not existed. 

Moreover, the court notes that Defendant does not appear to argue that Plaintiff was not statutorily permitted to recover attorney’s fees and costs.  The arbitrator concluded that Plaintiff was entitled to recover damages and/or civil penalties in connection with her ninth, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th causes of action.  (Pet. Ex. B, Interim Award, pp. 60-64.)  The arbitrator further found that Plaintiff was the prevailing party in arbitration.  (Id. at p. 64:20.)  Several provisions of the Labor Code that govern Plaintiff’s causes of action provide that the prevailing party shall recover attorney’s fees and costs, such that the arbitrator was permitted, pursuant to these statutes, to award Plaintiff her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.  (Lab. Code, §§ 218.5, subd. (a) [“In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages . . . the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party”], 226, subd. (e) [an employee suffering injury as a result of an employer’s failure to comply with section 226, subdivision (a) “is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees”], 1194, subd. (a) [“any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation . . . is entitled to recover . . . reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit”].)

Thus, the court finds that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers in awarding to Plaintiff the attorney’s fees and costs that were incurred in the underlying judicial proceeding and that the arbitrator determined would have been incurred even if the non-arbitrated claims had not existed.

Second, Defendant contends that the arbitrator exceeded her authority in awarding to Plaintiff attorney’s fees incurred in mediation.  Specifically, Defendant contends that, because the parties agreed to split the costs of mediation, Plaintiff was not permitted to recover attorney’s fees incurred for her counsel’s appearance at mediation.  The court disagrees.  Although the court acknowledges that the parties agreed to split the costs of mediation, Defendant did not present evidence showing that they contemplated “costs” to include attorney’s fees.  (Gilchrest Decl., Ex. 6, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs, p. 4:13-15 [“While the parties did have an agreement to split the costs of the mediation evenly . . . .”].)  The court also notes that, in the arbitration awards, the arbitrator expressly excluded the $5,000 in mediation costs pursuant to the parties’ agreement.  (Pet., Ex. B, Fourth Interim Award re Respondent’s Motion to Tax Costs, p. 5:8-9 [“the case law indicates that the parties’ agreement to split the costs of mediation prevails”], 5:22-23 [excluding from the cost award “$5,000 for mediation costs”].) 

Thus, the court finds that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers in awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in appearing for mediation.

Third, the court grants Plaintiff’s request to confirm the arbitration award.

The court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for confirmation of the arbitration award.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.)  Plaintiff has (1) attached a copy of the arbitration agreement, (2) set forth the name of the arbitrator (Hon. Rita Miller (Ret.)), and           (3) attached copies of the Final Award and Interim Awards.  (Ibid.; Pet., Ex. A [arbitration agreement]; Pet., p. 5:23 [naming the arbitrator]; Pet., Ex. B [awards].) 

Thus, because (1) Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4, and (2) the court has determined that the award should not be corrected as requested by Defendant, the court grants Plaintiff’s request to confirm the arbitration award as made.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286 [“the court shall confirm the award as made . . . unless . . . it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding”].) 

Fourth, the court denies Plaintiff’s request that the court enter a “partial judgment” in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant because doing so would violate the one final judgment rule.  (Pet., p. 4:9-10, 4:19-20; Cuevas v. Truline Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 56, 60 [“‘[A]s a general rule there can be only one final judgment in a single action’”].)  The court denies Plaintiff’s related requests that the court, in entering the proposed partial judgment, include         (1) an award of attorney’s fees and costs to prepare the pending petition, and (2) additional prejudgment interest.  (Pet., p. 8:5-6 [requesting that the court “include in its Partial Judgment additional attorney’s fees”], 8:14-15 [requesting that the court include additional prejudgment interest].)

ORDER

            The court (1) grants plaintiff Leonor Hernandez Mata’s petition to confirm arbitration award, and (2) denies plaintiff Leonor Hernandez Mata’s request that the court enter partial judgment.

            The court confirms the Final Award, issued on October 20, 2023 by arbitrator Hon. Rita Miller (Ret.), including the following Interim Awards incorporated therein: (1) Fourth Interim Award re Respondent’s Motion to Tax Costs, issued on October 3, 2023 by arbitrator Hon. Rita Miller (Ret.); (2) Third Interim Award Concerning Claimant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, issued on September 25, 2023 by arbitrator Hon. Rita Miller (Ret.); (3) Second Interim Award, issued on July 25, 2025 by arbitrator Hon. Rita Miller (Ret.); and (4) Interim Award, issued on May 25, 2023 by arbitrator Hon. Rita Miller (Ret.).

            The court orders plaintiff Leonor Hernandez Mata to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 22, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court