Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 23STCV12408, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV12408, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this petition.[1]

Petitioner John Talbot Blizzard (“Petitioner”) filed this Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award on June 1, 2023 against respondent Sania Maqbool Draper (“Respondent”).

“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 petition under this chapter shall:¿ (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.¿ (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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) “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.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.)¿ Any response to the petition is required to be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.)¿

“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.)

First, Petitioner has filed a proof of service stating that Respondent was served with this petition, the notice of continuance of the hearing on this petition, and other case management documents by personal service on August 2, 2023. Thus, the court finds that Petitioner has properly served Respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).) Second, Petitioner has attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate to the petition. (Brandlin Decl., Ex. A, p. 3, § 6.) Third, Petitioner has set forth the name of the arbitrator to be Hon. Melinda A. Johnson (Ret.). (Pet., p. 3, ¶ 4.) Fourth, Petitioner has attached a copy of the Corrected Award, issued by the arbitrator on May 5, 2023. (Brandlin Decl., Ex. B.)

Respondent has filed an opposition to the petition, arguing that (1) she was not properly served with notice of the arbitration proceedings and, therefore was unable to dispute Petitioner’s claims, and (2) certain of Petitioner’s claims are false.

The court finds that Respondent has not met her burden to show that the arbitration award should be vacated.

“[T]he court shall vacate the [arbitration] award if the court determines” that (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; (2) there was corruption in any of the arbitrators; (3) the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator; (4) the arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted; (5) the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title; or (6) the arbitrator making the award either (A) failed to disclose a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was aware, or (B) was subject to disqualification but failed upon receipt of a timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a).)

Respondent has not cited any authority establishing that insufficient service constitutes a ground for vacatur as set forth by Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2. “Arbitration awards may be vacated in only one of six statutorily enumerated circumstances.” (Santa Monica College Faculty Assn. v. Santa Monica Community College Dist. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 538, 546.) Thus, the court finds that Respondent has not met her burden to show, with evidence and argument, that one of the statutory grounds applies for vacation of the arbitration award. (Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. v. Liebhaber (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1106 [“The party seeking to vacate an arbitration award bears the burden of establishing that one of the six grounds listed in section 1286.2 applies and that the party was prejudiced by the arbitrator’s error”].)

Moreover, even if Respondent had demonstrated that insufficient notice of the arbitration proceedings were grounds for vacating the arbitration award, Respondent has not presented evidence showing that she was not served with the relevant documents. Respondent has not, for example, submitted a declaration attesting to the nonservice of documents. Moreover, Petitioner has submitted evidence in reply establishing that Respondent was served. (Reply, Ex. 1 [Affidavit of Process Server stating that Respondent was served, by substituted service, on June 15, 2021, with, inter alia, demand for arbitration].) Similarly, the court finds that Respondent’s disputing the facts and validity of Petitioner’s claims does not constitute a ground for vacating the arbitration award set forth by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a).)

The court finds that (1) Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for confirmation of the arbitration award, and (2) Respondent has not shown that the arbitration award must be vacated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) The court therefore grants petitioner John Talbot Blizzard’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award.

The court orders petitioner John Talbot Blizzard to lodge and serve a proposed judgment confirming arbitration award with the court no later than 10 days from the date of this ruling.

The court sets an Order to Show Cause re entry of judgment confirming arbitration award on December 20, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

[1] The court notes that Petitioner has stated, in his reply, that Respondent’s opposition “was not served on Petitioner, but was obtained by Petitioner through the court’s online portal.” (Reply, p. 1:21-24.) Because Petitioner filed reply papers, the court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition papers.

john talbot blizzard ; Petitioner, vs. sania maqbool draper , et al.; Respondents.	Case No.:	23STCV12408

	Hearing Date:	October 4, 2023

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[Tentative] Order RE: petitioner’s petition to confirm arbitration award