Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCP04100, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP04100    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On December 16, 2024, Petitioners Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons Southern California Health and Welfare Fund, Board of Trustees of Sothern California Pension Trust, Board of Trustees of Eleven Counties Cement Masons Vacation Savings Plan, Board of Trustees of Cement Masons Joint Apprenticeship Trust, and Board of Trustees of Cement Masons Southern California Individual Retirement Account (Defined Contribution) Trust (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed a Verified Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award in this action against Respondent ND Construction Company, Inc. (“Respondent”).

 Petitioners now move for an order confirming the Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Mark Burstein on October 1, 2024, in favor of Petitioners and against Respondent. The motion is unopposed. 

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. The petition shall 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.)

“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.” ((Id., § 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.” ((Id., § 1286.) Any response to the petition is required to be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. ((Id., § 1290.6.)

Discussion

In the instant motion, Petitioners state that “Respondent ND Construction Company, Inc., a California corporation…agreed to submit this dispute to the Arbitrator for final and binding determination.” (Mot. at p. 4:17-19, citing “Verified Petition, Exhibit 1, Memorandum Agreement, Article B.5”.) Petitioners’ Verified Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (herein, the “Verified Petition”) alleges that “[o]n or about November 7, 2022, [Cement Masons Local Unions] and Respondent entered into a written collective bargaining agreement, entitled the Cement Masons Memorandum Agreement (‘Memorandum Agreement’). A copy of the signed Memorandum Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘1.’” (Verified Petition, ¶ 5, Ex. 1.)

The Verified Petition alleges that “[i]n accordance with Article B, Section 5 of the Memorandum Agreement, the Respondent was cited to appear before the Fringe Benefit Contributions Arbitrator (herein ‘Arbitrator’) on September 30, 2024.” (Verified Petition, ¶ 8.) The Verified Petition further alleges that “[o]n September 30, 2024, Arbitrator Mark Burstein heard the evidence and rendered the decision. The Award was issued and served by Arbitrator Burstein on October 1, 2024. A true and correct copy of the Award issued in accordance with Article B, Section (B.5.1.3- B.5.1.4) of the Memorandum Agreement [Exhibit 1], is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit ‘3.’” (Verified Petition, ¶ 11, Ex. 3.)[1]

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioners have “set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate,” “[s]et forth the names of the arbitrator[],” and “[s]et forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” ((Id., § 1285.4.) In addition, on January 15, 2025, Petitioners filed a proof of service indicating that, inter alia, the instant motion and the Verified Petition were served on Respondent on January 15, 2025.

In light of the foregoing and the lack of any opposition, the Court grants Petitioners’ motion for an order confirming the award issued by Arbitrator Mark Burstein on October 1, 2024.

            Lastly, Petitioners appear to seek “all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs incurred, and court costs required to enforce the Award.” (Notice of Motion at p. 3:9-10.) Petitioners do not appear to specify the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs they seek, nor do they specify whom they seek attorney’s fees and costs against. The Court notes that “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subd. (a).) Thus, to the extent Petitioners seek an award of attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the instant motion, the Court denies any such request without prejudice.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Petitioners’ motion for an order confirming the award issued by Arbitrator Mark Burstein on October 1, 2024. The Court denies any purported

request by Petitioners for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Petitioners are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.¿ 

DATED:  February 26, 2025                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court