Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCP00427, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCP00427    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: G

Petitioner Swift Financial, LLC’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Swift Financial, LLC’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action to confirm an arbitration award. In June 2022, WebBank entered into a written business loan agreement with Respondent Walden Speed Shop, Inc. (Walden Speed Shop) in which WebBank agreed to loan $110,000 to Walden Speed Shop. In support of the loan agreement, Respondent Bobby Walden executed a personal guaranty. In paragraph 28 of the loan agreement, the parties agreed to resolve any claims through binding arbitration. On June 1, 2023, Petitioner Swift Financial, LLC (Swift), as servicing agent for WebBank, obtained an arbitration award for breach of the loan agreement in the amount of $105,884.82 against Walden and Walden Speed Shop after they failed to appear for the arbitration hearing.

On September 28, 2023, Swift filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award against Walden and Walden Speed Shop. On October 17, Swift’s process server served Walden Speed Shop with substitute service in Pomona. On October 25, Swift’s process server served Walden with substitute service at the same location.

On October 16, 2023, Swift filed the present motion for the granting of Swift’s petition. A hearing on the petition is set for December 14 with a case management conference and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service on March 3, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Swift moves for confirmation of their arbitration award against Walden and Walden Speed Shop. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Swift’s petition.

Legal Standard

“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.) Such a petition must “(a) [s]et 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) [s]et forth the names of the arbitrators[; and] (c) [s]et forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) The petition must also “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.)

After being served with the petition, respondents have ten days to serve and file a response or thirty days if the petition was served outside California via mail pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, subdivision (b)(2). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, 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.)

“The scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow. Courts may not review the merits of the controversy, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award, or the validity of the arbitrator’s reasoning.” (Department of Personnel Administration v. California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1200.) “[W]ith limited exceptions, ‘an arbitrator’s decision is not generally reviewable for errors of fact or law, whether or not such error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice to the parties.’” (Ibid, quoting Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 6.)

Discussion

In this case, the court finds Swift has satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4 by providing a copy of the business loan agreement containing the arbitration provision, setting forth the name of the arbitrator as George J. Krueger of the American Arbitration Association, and providing a copy of the arbitration award. The court also finds Swift has adequately served Walden Speed Shop and Walden with substitute service on October 17, 2023, and October 25. The court does note that there appears to be a defect with Swift’s proofs of service in that Swift’s process server stated Walden and Walden Speed Shop were served at “home” when it appears they were served at their place of business.

The proofs of service state they were served at 1040 Price Avenue, Pomona, CA 91767. But in the original business loan agreement, the court notes the same address is listed as the billing address for Walden Speed Shop and that Walden’s home address is listed as a different address in Ontario. Furthermore, the proofs of service describe the John Doe who was served as an “employee” and the supporting declaration of diligence refers to the 1040 Price Avenue location as a business. Last, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that this property is classified as “industrial” by the Los Angeles County Assessor. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).)

Notwithstanding these defects, the court finds there is sufficient evidence Walden Speed Shop and Walden were properly served at their place of business with notice of the present petition as Swift’s process server twice attempted service the Pomona location before effecting substitute service on the unnamed employee. Walden Speed Shop and Walden have failed to file a timely response or opposition by the deadline set in Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.6. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Swift’s petition.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Swift’s petition to confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.