Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 22STCP01240, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01240    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Petitioners Rita Regency Sponsor, LLC and Rita Hollywood Skyline’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment Thereon is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

On or about February 22, 2018, Petitioner Rita Hollywood Skyline (“RHS”) and Respondent EMC Partners, LLC (“EMC”) entered into a Settlement Agreement in relation to disputes over development of shared property (the “Subject Property”). (“Petition ¶ 6.) The Settlement Agreement required the parties to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of the Settlement Agreement. (Petition ¶ 7.)

On August 31, 2018, Petitioner Rita Regency Sponsor and Raziel USA Trust entered into a Fourth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement (the “Operating Agreement”) of Rita Regency LLC (“Rita Regency”). (Petition ¶ 8.) The Operating Agreement also contained an arbitration provision. (Petition ¶ 9.)

In May, 2020, Rita Regency Sponsor filed a lawsuit against EMC in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking declaratory relief and alleging a breach of contract in connection with proper ownership of the Subject Property. (Petition ¶ 13.) Shortly thereafter, EMC filed a Cross-Complaint that attached the Settlement Agreement and the Operating Agreement as publicly filed documents in violation of the confidentiality provisions in same agreements. (Petition ¶ 14.) RHS and Rita Regency Sponsor filed separate demands for arbitration regarding the confidentiality breach, which were consolidated to one arbitration. (Petition ¶¶ 15-16.) The Arbitrator ruled in favor of RHS and Rita Regency Sponsor and named them the prevailing parties. (Petition ¶ 17.) The Settlement Agreement and Operating Agreement provide that the prevailing party’s Attorneys’ Fees shall be paid by the opposing party. (Petition ¶ 17.)

On November 29, 2021, the Arbitrator issued a Final Arbitration Award granting Petitioners Attorneys’ fees. (Petition ¶ 20.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On April 6, 2022, Petitioners filed the Petition.

On April 20, 2022, Petitioners filed a Notice of Related Case.

On April 21, 2022, Respondent filed a Response to Petition.

On May 13, 2022, this Court, with the Hon. Douglas W. Stern presiding, deemed the cases related and assigned all cases to the instant Department 78.

On July 25, 2022, Petitioners filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION 

I.               PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

Petitioners petition the Court to confirm the arbitration award in its entirety.

Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court for confirmation of the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) Upon service and filing of a petition to confirm arbitration award, the court shall confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (Id., § 1286.) The contents of a petition to confirm an arbitration award shall set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate, the names of the arbitrators, and shall set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) Where the petition is served but no response is served and filed, the allegations in the petition are deemed admitted.  (CCP § 1290; Taheri Law Group, A.P.C. v. Sorokurs (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 956, 962.)    

Every presumption is in favor of the arbitration award. (See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. United Rubber Workers of America (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 444, 449.) CCP section 1286.2 provides that “the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following: (1) [t]he award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means.” (CCP § 1286.2(a).) The defendant moving for vacation of an arbitration award due to corruption, fraud, or other undue means must demonstrate a nexus between the award and the alleged undue means used to attain it. (See Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 833-34.) An objection to the granting of a motion to confirm an award is equivalent to a motion to vacate. (See Thriftimart, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 421, 425-26.) 

Here, Petitioner has fulfilled the procedural requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4.

Respondent does not oppose confirmation of the award but does argue that the Court should not grant Petitioners Attorneys’ Fees in relation to the filing of the instant petition. Respondent contends that Respondent’s Counsel agreed to stipulate to the arbitration award to avoid unnecessary attorneys’ fees and costs. (Response ¶ 14(a).) Additionally, Respondent argues that though the Operating Agreement, the Settlement Agreement, and the Arbitration Award all contain provisions allowing for the prevailing party to collect attorneys’ fees related to the arbitration, none allow for fees related to post-arbitration proceedings. (Response ¶ 14(e).) Accordingly, Respondent argues, all attorney fees have already been awarded to Petitioner in the Arbitration Award, and none more are due.

In response, Petitioner notes that an award of attorneys’ fees on Post-Arbitration proceedings are not only allowed, but mandatory, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1293.2.

Section 1293.2 states that “The court shall award costs upon any judicial proceeding under this title as provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1293.2.) “The award of costs pursuant to section 1293.2, including attorney fees when authorized by contract, is mandatory.” (Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Woodman Investment Group (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 508, 513.) “Such judicial proceedings may include a petition to confirm, correct, or vacate an award.” (Carol Ring & Associates v. Nicastro (2001) 87 Cal.App.4^th 253, 260; CCP § 1285.)

Petitioners are owed attorneys’ fees for the filing of the instant Petition as a matter of statutory right.

Accordingly, Petitioners’ Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is GRANTED in its entirety, and Petitioners are to be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees.

DATED: August 3, 2022 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court