Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 24STCP01812, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCP01812, Date: 2024-07-12 Tentative Ruling

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this petition. No opposition papers were filed.

Petitioner Grant | Shenon, a Professional Law Corporation (“Petitioner”) moves the court for an order confirming the final arbitration award issued by arbitrators Michael J. Zuckerman, Setrak Attarian, and Sarkis Jacob Babachanian, in the arbitration between Petitioner and respondents Lawrence Deutsch and Jacob Deutsch (“Respondents”).

The court finds that Petitioner has not properly served Respondents with this petition and the supporting papers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).)

“Section 1290.4, subdivision (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure . . . set[s] forth service requirements for a ‘petition’ under the contractual arbitration law[,]” including a petition to confirm, correct, or vacate an arbitration award. (Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928.) This statute provides that service shall be made “in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (a).) If the arbitration agreement does not provide for the manner of such service, and if the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding, then “[s]ervice within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).)

Respondents have not yet appeared in this action and appear to reside in California. (Grant Decl., Ex. B, Arbitration Award, p. 3 [proof of service on Respondents at California address].) Moreover, Petitioner did not identify a provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement setting forth the manner of service of a petition to confirm an arbitration award.[1] Thus, Petitioner was required to serve Respondents with this petition and the notice of hearing on the petition in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).)

“A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.10.) If the summons and complaint cannot, with reasonable diligence, be personally delivered to the person to be served, “a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address . . . in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address . . . at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

Petitioner attached a proof of service to the petition stating that Respondents were served with its Notice of Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and the proposed order by mail and by email. (Pet., pp. 49-50.) Petitioner did not file any other proofs of service establishing service on Respondents of the petition and the notice of the hearing thereon. Thus, the court finds that Petitioner has not served Respondents with the petition and the notice of hearing on the petition “in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action” because Petitioner did not serve Respondents (1) by personal service, or (2) by substituted service. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b)(1).)

The court therefore denies Petitioner’s petition to confirm the arbitration award, without prejudice to Petitioner’s filing an amended petition and serving Respondents with the amended petition in the same manner as service of summons.

The court denies petitioner Grant | Shenon, a Professional Law Corporation’s petition to confirm arbitration award, without prejudice.

The court orders petitioner Grant | Shenon, a Professional Law Corporation to give notice of this ruling.

[1] The court notes that the arbitration provision in the parties’ Litigation Enforcement Agreement states that, “[i]f either party files a Petition to Compel Arbitration with the Superior Court, service of the Petition and Notice of Hearing on said Petition shall be allowed by first-class mail, postage prepaid.” (Grant Decl., Ex. A, Litigation Enforcement Agreement, p. 6, § 8, subd. (b).) However, this provision does not set forth the manner of service of a petition to confirm an arbitration award, and therefore does not permit service by first-class mail, postage prepaid of such petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (a) [“A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice”] [emphasis added].)

grant \| shenon, a professional law corporation ; Petitioner, vs. lawrence deutsch , et al.; Respondents.	Case No.:	24STCP01812

	Hearing Date:	July 12, 2024

	Time:	10:00 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: petition to confirm arbitration award