Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 24STCP01552, Date: 2024-10-25 Tentative Ruling

CITY OF HOPE, et al.

Petitioners,

vs.

UMA MAHESWARA RAO JONNALAGADDA,

Respondent.

Case No.:

24STCP01552

Hearing Date:

October 25, 2024

Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

On May 13, 2024, Petitioners City of Hope and Armen Mardiros (jointly, “Petitioners”) filed a petition to confirm arbitration award in this action against Respondent Uma Maheswara Rao Jonnalagadda (“Respondent”). Petitioners petition the Court for an order confirming an arbitration award issued on May 15, 2023 by Dr. Eldora Ellison in a contractual arbitration between City of Hope and Armen Mardiros concerning the inventor status of Respondent Uma Maheswara Rao Jonnalagadda. No opposition to the petition was filed.

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to

confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.”

“A petition under this chapter shall: (a) Set 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) Set forth the names of the arbitrators. (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made…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.) Any response to the petition is required to be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.)

In support of the Petition, Petitioners submit the Declaration of Daralyn J. Durie, counsel for City of Hope. Ms. Durie indicates that “[t]he Arbitration took place across three days: February 27, 2023 (in Duarte, California); February 28, 2023 (in Los Angeles, California); and March 6, 2023 (in Century City, California). The arbitrator was Dr. Eldora Ellison, a Director of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.” (Durie Decl., ¶ 5.) Thus, Petitioners have “[s]et forth the names of the arbitrators.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4, subd. (b).)

Mr. Durie attaches as Exhibit A to her declaration a copy of “the arbitration award and decision rendered by Dr. Eldora Ellison on May 15, 2023, in an arbitration between City of Hope and Dr. Armen Mardiros.” (Durie Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. A.) Thus, Petitioners have “[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, subd. (c).)

However, the Court does not find that Petitioners have “[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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4, subd. (a).) Petitioners do not appear to deny the existence of such an agreement. Rather, Ms. Durie states that “[o]n June 24, 2021, City of Hope and Dr. Mardiros agreed to participate in an arbitration to determine whether Dr. Jonnalagadda was properly named as an inventor on the CD123 Patents and Spacer Applications. The parties’ Agreement specified that following a final decision by the arbitrator, any party can seek to confirm the award in court.” (Durie Decl., ¶ 2.)

In addition, it is unclear if Petitioners provided Respondent with notice of the October 25, 2024 hearing on the instant petition. Petitioners filed a proof of service on June 24, 2024 indicating that certain documents including the petition and a notice of hearing were served on Respondent via personal service on June 24, 2024. However, the notice of hearing filed on June 13, 2024 references an August 21, 2024 hearing on the petition.

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies the petition to confirm arbitration award without prejudice.

ADDITIONALLY, NO COURTESY COPIES OF THE PETITION PAPERS WERE DELIVERED TO DEPARTMENT 50. COURTESY COPIES MUST BE PROVIDED FOR ANY DOCUMENTS OVER 15 PAGES AND ANY DOCUMENTS WITH A POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Petitioners’ petition to confirm arbitration award without prejudice.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50