Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: BC703537, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC703537    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: 39

Felix Lopez, et al. v. Kathleen Williams McBride

Case No. BC703537

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

            The Court ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated June 9, 2023.)  Following the arbitration, the arbitrator found in favor of Defendant.  Now, Defendant seeks the following relief: (1) Confirmation of the 2023 arbitration award; (2) Judgment in favor of Defendant, and against Plaintiffs, in the amount of the attorneys’ fees awarded ($106,792.84); (3) Interest on the judgment at the statutory rate of 10% since December 9, 2023; and (4) Attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the instant petition. 

A party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition at least 10 days, but no more than four years after the arbitrator serves the arbitration award.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.)  The Court must confirm the award unless an opposing party demonstrates good cause to correct or vacate the arbitration award, or to dismiss the proceedings.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.)  If the Court confirms the award, the Court enters an enforceable judgment with the same force and effect as a judgment in a civil action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.) 

Plaintiffs argue that the arbitrator failed to decide all necessary questions to determine the controversy.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1283.4.)  The arbitrator must determine which issues are necessary to determine.  (Morris v. Zuckerman (1968) 69 Cal.2d 686, 690.)  A party that challenges an arbitration award on this basis must meet the heavy burden to rebut the presumption that the arbitrator resolved all issues submitted to the arbitrator.  (Rodrigues v. Keller (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 838, 841.)  In this case, Plaintiffs argue that the arbitrator erred because the arbitrator did not afford due weight to “the abundant evidence that Plaintiffs adduced in the course of the arbitration proceedings.”  (See Opposition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, p. 6.)  Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument is that the arbitrator erred, not that the arbitrator failed to determine all necessary issues.  The Court cannot refuse to confirm an arbitrator’s award based on an error.  (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 28.)  Likewise, Plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitrator failed to decide all necessary issues because the arbitrator did not permit Plaintiffs to add a cause of action for negligent interference with contractual relationships is simply an argument that the arbitrator erred, and is therefore improper. 

The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs associated with this petition.  The Court authorizes attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,700 based upon 18 hours at a reasonable billing rate of $650 plus a filing fee of $60. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendants’ petition to confirm the arbitration award, dated December 8, 2023, is granted.

            2.         The Court orders Plaintiffs to pay an additional $11,760 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Defendant, by and through counsel.

            3.         Defendant’s counsel shall lodge a proposed judgment consistent with this order. 

            4.         The Court sets a non-appearance case review for March 20, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.

            5.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.