Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22STCV22678, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22678    Hearing Date: April 29, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 4-29-25

Case: 22STCV22678

Trial Date: N/A

CONFIRM ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Petitioner, David Thomson

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Verses Technologies USA, Inc., et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff David Thomson filed a complaint (1) Unregistered Sale of Securities; (2) Violation of Section 25401 Of California Corporations Code; (3) Violation of Sections 45001 And 25504 of the California Corporations Code; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing (6) Unjust Enrichment against Defendants Verses Technologies USA, Inc., Cyberlab, LLC, Daniel Mapes, and Gabriel René.

On March 30, 2023, the court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. On May 17, 2024, an arbitrator found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded $9,921,298.24. Defendants Verses Technologies USA, Inc., Cyberlab, LLC were also found responsible for all arbitration fees and costs.

New counsel substituted into the case for Plaintiff on July 12, 2024. On July 17 and September 12, 2024, former counsel for Plaintiff filed a lien and amended notice of lien.

Plaintiff filed two separate petitions to confirm arbitration awards on January 23 and 29, 2025, respectively.

RULING: Granted.      

Plaintiff/Petitioner, David Thomson moves to confirm the arbitration award. On May 17, 2024, the arbitrator issued an extensive decision with the award summarized as follows:

“1. For claimant on claimant’s First Cause of Action for Violation of California Corporations Code §§ 25110 and 25503 in the amount of $1,900,000.00 against respondents Verses and Cyberlab jointly and severally; 2. For claimant on claimant’s Second Cause of Action for Violation of California Corporations Code § 25401 as against respondents Verses and Cyberlab jointly and severally in the amounts already stated in the First Cause of Action; 3. For claimant on claimant’s Third Cause of Action for Violation of California Corporations Code §§ 45001 and 25504 as against respondents René and Mapes jointly and severally in the amounts already stated in the First Cause of Action; 4. For claimant on claimant’s Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract as against respondents Verses and Cyberlab jointly and severally in the amount of $6,307,258.43; 5. For claimant on claimant’s Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing as against respondent Verses in the amounts already stated in the Fourth Cause of Action; 6. For claimant on claimant’s Sixth Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment as against all respondents jointly and severally in the amounts already stated in the First and Fourth Causes of Action; 7. Claimant’s Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duties is withdrawn; 8. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s First Cause of Action for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; 9. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract; 10. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s Third Cause of Action for Violation of the Economic Espionage Act; 11. The Arbitrator dismisses with prejudice counterclaimant’s Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of the Computer Data Access and Fraud Act as preempted; 12. For claimant on claimant’s request for attorney fees in the amount of $920,231.30; 13. For claimant on claimant’s request for costs in the amount of $64,305.82; 14. For claimant on claimant’s request for pre-judgment interest in the amount of $729,502.69; 15. For claimant on claimant’s request for post-judgment interest at the legal rate; 16. For all respondents on claimant’s request for punitive damages; 17. For all respondents on claimant’s request for declaratory relief; 18. For all respondents on claimant’s request for an accounting; 19. For all respondents on claimant’s request for injunctive relief; 20. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for damages; 21. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for injunctive relief; 22. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for affirmative equitable relief; 23. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for disgorgement; 24. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for treble damages; 25. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for a reasonable royalty; 26. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for attorney fees; 27. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for costs; 28. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for interest; 29. For counter-respondent on counterclaimant’s request for punitive damages; and 30. Claimant shall execute a full release of his rights to any tokens and equity within 30 days of receipt of the amounts awarded herein.”

“Claimant, counter-respondent is the prevailing party in this matter. The administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association in the amount of $3,200.00 and the compensation of the Arbitrator in the amount of $187,265.00 shall be borne by respondents Verses Technologies USA, Inc. and Cyberlab, LLC, jointly and severally.”

“This Final Award amends and supersedes the Interim Award dated April 18, 2024 in its entirety. This Final Award is in full settlement of all claims submitted in this arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby denied. This final award resolves all issues between all parties and represents the final adjudication of all claims and defenses between the parties.”

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.) It appears the American Arbitration Association served the final award on May 17, 2024, via email. Plaintiff also includes a a proof of service of the award with a service date of February 4, 2024. [Declaration of David Bleistein, Ex. 2.]  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.) Respondent submitted no challenge to the petition within the 100-day challenge period following the May 17, 2024, issued final award (e.g. by August 26, 2024). (Eternity Investments, Inc. v. Brown (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 739, 745.) Plaintiff/Petitioner filed a notice of non-opposition and reiterates the basis for confirmation of the unchallenged award following the expiration of the challenge deadlines.

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.

Plaintiff/Petitioner to submit a proposed judgment.

Plaintiff/Petitioner to provide notice.