Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 20STCV20883, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20STCV20883, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20883 Hearing Date: August 6, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 8-6-24

Case: 20STCV20883

Trial Date: N/A

CONFIRM ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, TRT Holdings, Inc., et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Sandra Cortez

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff Sandra Cortez filed a complaint (1) Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (2) Violation of Labor Code § 232.5; (3) Violation of Labor Code § 6310 (Unsafe Working Conditions); (4) Violation of Labor Code § 6311 (Refusal Of Hazardous Work) (5) Discrimination In Violation of FEHA; (6) Unlawful Adoption of English-Only Policies Limiting or Prohibiting The Use of Spanish In Violation of FEHA; (7) Harassment In Violation of FEHA; (8) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (9) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation In Violation Of FEHA; (10) Failure to Hire In Violation Of FEHA; (11) Breach of Express Oral Contract Not to Terminate Employment Without Good Cause; (12) Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract Not to Terminate Employment Without Good Cause; (13) Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation Of Public Policy; and (14) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On October 23, 2020, the court ordered the action to arbitration. On March 4, 2024, an arbitration was issued. Defendants filed their petition to confirm on May 6, 2024.

RULING: Granted.

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

The court takes judicial notice of the filing of the pleadings, but otherwise cannot take notice of the content of any pleading. The court takes judicial notice of the April 9, 2021, denied writ of mandate order.

Defendants TRT Holdings, Inc. (erroneously sued as TRT Holdings, Inc. dba Omni Los Angeles Hotel at California Plaza); Omni Hotels & Resorts; Omni Hotels Management Corporation; Edward Moreno and Leticia Sandoval (“Omni”) move to confirm the arbitration award. Plaintiff filed a four court day/six calendar day late “conditional non-opposition,” whereby Plaintiff “does not in principle oppose the confirmation of the arbitrator’s award,” but apparently submitted said notice “solely to facilitate her intended appeal.” Plaintiff also preemptively requests any relief for the timing of said conditional non-opposition by first challenging said item actually constitutes an ”opposition in the true sense of things,” and proactively, as well as extensively, seeking relief under the mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect standard pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

On March 4, 2024, the arbitrator awarded as follows: “1. Claimant shall take nothing on her Claims; 2. The parties shall bear their respective attorneys’ fees and costs; 3. The administrative fees of the AAA in the sum of $4,390.00, and the compensation and expenses of the Arbitrator in

the sum of $63,281.75, shall be borne as incurred; and 4. This Award resolves all issues submitted for decision in this proceeding. Any claims not expressly granted are hereby denied.”

The court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.) Service of the petition to confirm the award was completed via electronic service on May 6, 2024. Respondent provided no objection to the service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (a).) Service is therefore presumed valid. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.4, subd. (b).) The petition contains all required items. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) [Declaration of Carmen Aguado.] Respondent submitted no challenge to the petition within the 100-day challenge period following the March 4, 2024, issued final award (e.g. by June 12, 2024). (Eternity Investments, Inc. v. Brown (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 739, 745.)

All arbitration awards, including those that already have been satisfied or performed, are subject to confirmation, and not moot. (Pacific Law Group: USA v. Gibson (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 577, 580.)

The unopposed petition is therefore granted.

The court acknowledges the filed “conditional non-opposition” and declines to either exclude or strike on grounds of untimeliness. The court also declines to consider the proactive request for relief. Thus, any challenge to the propriety of the award itself for preservation of claims on appeal are noted. (See Ashburn v. AIG Financial Advisors, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 79, 93-94.)

Defendants/Petitioners submitted a proposed judgment with the petition.

Defendants/Petitioners to provide notice.