Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCP02326, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 24STCP02326    Hearing Date: September 18, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP     

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this Petition.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (“Petitioner”) filed the pending Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment against respondents Gary Pagar (“Pagar”) and Runyon NKMS, LLC (“Runyon”) (collectively, “Respondents”) on July 24, 2024.

“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.)¿¿ 

The court finds that Petitioner did not properly serve Respondents with notice of the hearing on its Petition.

First, the court finds that Petitioner did not properly give notice of the time of this hearing to respondent Pagar.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4.)  The court acknowledges that, on August 13, 2024, Petitioner filed a proof of service of establishing that it served respondent Pagar with the Petition, the Notice of Hearing on Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, and other case management documents by substituted service on August 10, 2024.  (Aug. 13, 2024 Proof of Service, ¶¶ 2, 3, 5, and pp. 3 [proof of service by mail], 4 [affidavit of due diligence]; Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)  However, the notice of hearing stated two different times for the hearing on the Petition: (1) in its caption, Petitioner stated the correct hearing time to be 10:00 a.m., but (2) in the paragraph giving notice, Petitioner stated the incorrect hearing time to be 8:30 a.m.  (Aug. 7, 2024 Notice of Hearing, pp. 1:14-15, 2:1-4.)  Thus, it appears that respondent Pagar may not have received proper notice of the hearing time on this Petition.

Second, the court finds that Petitioner did not give sufficient notice of the hearing on its Petition to respondent NKMS.  On September 5, 2024, Petitioner filed a proof of service of establishing that it served respondent NKMS with the Petition, the Notice of Hearing on Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, and other case management documents by substituted service on September 4, 2024.  (Sep. 5, 2024 Proof of Service, ¶¶ 1, 3, 5, and p. 3 [proof of service by mail on September 5, 2024].)  Service was deemed complete on respondent NKMS on September 15, 2024, i.e., 10 days after the date that Petitioner mailed the Petition and related documents.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20, subd. (b) [“Service of summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after mailing”].)  However, “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)  Because service was deemed complete on September 15, 2024, Petitioner served respondent NKMS with only two court days’ notice of the September 18, 2024 hearing on the Petition.[1] 

Thus, the court finds that it is appropriate, and therefore exercises its discretion, to continue the hearing on Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment to ensure that Respondents are given sufficient notice of the correct hearing date and time on the Petition.

ORDER

            The court orders that the hearing on petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment is continued to December 2, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders petitioner Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (1) to give notice of this ruling to respondents Gary Pagar and Runyon NKMS, LLC, and (2) to file with the court the notice of ruling and a proof of service of the notice of ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 18, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court